Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 6/1/24 5:56 PM, El Kabong wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:
>

We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several
proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects
them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.

>
Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion.  It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.
>
The earth is awash in exergy.  It has always been there
for the taking.  The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift.  Extinction almost always happens due to
environment & competition, humans included.
>
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.
>
>

If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
commitment to convention.

>
So Gould was an IDer.  Who knew?
>

Now, now.  Gould wasn't/isn't the last word of authority, especially
since he's been gone many years now, but his opinion that "replaying
life's tape" would produce nothing like what we see is the antithesis of
intelligent design.  Ron's misunderstanding of almost everything about
evolutionary biology (Gould included) is becoming legendary.  He claims
to be an engineer, but what kind?

  RDean once claimed he's a design engineer.  How's that for irony?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge