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

On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Ernest Major wrote:

<snip uncommented text>
 

Once again, you conveniently forgot to mention that genetic
information is corrected and amplified by reproduction and natural
selection, no intelligence necessary.
>

No, it is not corrected through reproduction,

Read for comprehension.  Yes, it is corrected through reproduction
*and* natural selection.  Reproduction amplifies more fit mutations,
natural selection removes less fit mutations.  I know you know this.

but there are 6 known
proofreading and repair machines in DNA.  DNA corrects itself, except
rarely an mutation is not detected or repaired and the mutation is
passed down to offsprings through reproduction.

 
 

The availability constraint biases the genetic
code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the addition
of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the functional
range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs non-polar, basic
vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not already found in the
prior set.
>

This is supposition and hypothesis.

 
 
Since you mention it, your arguments are also supposition and
hypothesis.  Once again, your objection above applies as well to your
claims.
>

For example? It's so easy to make accusations without supporting the
charge. 

Since you mentioned it, Ernest Major is still waiting for *your*
example of a purposeful designer of Cambrian life.

People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic code
is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot better than
a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of proteinogenic
amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a set with, for
example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as likely to be
relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at all.
>

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.
>
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.

 
 
Once again, you conveniently forgot to mention that Dr. Stephen J.
Gould himself said that abrupt appearance and stasis [are] entirely
consistent with Darwinian evolution.
>

He was the first to acknowledge this characteristic of the fossil
record. While searching for evidence of evolutionary change, according
to Gould, paleontologist when they observed abrupt appearance and stasis
they saw this as _no_ evidence. But Gould wrote, "this is evidence". He
labeled what he
observed as punctuated equilibrium. He theorized that evolution occurred
in one location and migrated to another or was cut off by a river or
some other barrow. So, by such means he attempted
to integrate this into evolutionary theory.  So, as I pointed out
several times evolution is non-falsifiable. It's so plastic it can be
stretched to incorporate any contradictions. For example:stasis is the
exact opposite of gradual change.

Once again, you conveniently forgot that the existence of something
like Cambrian rabbits would be strong evidence against unguided
natural selection and for ID.

And no, stasis is *not* the exact opposite of gradual change.  Dr.
Stephen J. Gould himself recognized that even so-called living fossils
are not exactly the same as their ancestral forms.  Instead, he
defined stasis as *relatively* little change over *relatively* long
periods of time.  This is exactly what "gradual change" means.

More to the point, ToE doesn't care how fast or slow, or how much or
little, change happens.  I know you know this.

And since you mention it, try posting something about evolution that
lacks your well-documented biases, if only for the novelty of the
experience.
 

In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today. So, I've been
there, I could return without any problem if there was shown where ID
was wrong and evolution had the only explanation for what is observed.
It's my conclusion that evolution requires faith.
>
Evolution is more of a philosophy than science, since evidence is
interpretated to fit into the theory. But the exact same evidence can be
intrepretated to fit into the ID model which was done by a man
before Darwin was born, named William Paley. So, evolution is an
alternative explanation for all discovered evidence.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how baselessly biased it
is.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge