Re: Observe the trend. It’s happening. Give it time.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:18:00 +0000, MarkE wrote:

On 11/03/2025 5:44 pm, LDagget wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 5:30:52 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>

On 11/03/2025 5:30 am, LDagget wrote:

On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 4:34:30 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>

>

The limits of NS are not simply due to physically possible organisms.
It's much tighter constraint. The mechanism of "differential
reproductive success" is a blunt instrument, rightly described as
explaining the survival but not arrival of the fittest.
>
To elaborate my hypotheses (not proofs):
>
1. NS, along with any other naturalistic mechanisms, do not have the
logical capacity to fully traverse the solution space, regardless of
time available. Some (many) areas of the fitness landscape will be
islands, local maxima, inaccessible via gradualistic pathways (e.g.
monotonically increasing fitness functions). These are however
accessible to intelligent design.
>
2. The time/material resources of the universe allow exploration of
only
a small fraction of even the accessible solutions. Again, this
constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>
Does the burden of proof for these hypotheses rest exclusively with ID?
Not at all. Naturalism, if being intellectually curious, honest, and
open-minded, will ask the same questions and seek to answer them.

>
You assertions (it's vainglorious to promote them as hypotheses) are
rooted in nonsensical presumptions. Why would "solution space"
need to be fully traversed? A sensible person would have considered
'adequately traversed' and then followed that up with an analysis
of what would be adequate. But you chose FULLY. It's beyond amateurish.
>
That biological evolution will never get around to testing some
potential
genomes is one of those trivial things. You can work out the math on
the number of potential genomes and the number of atoms in the universe
and figure out that they won't all wind up in some fledgling organism
asking for a try out. And so what? It doesn't advance a sensible point.
You aren't advancing a remotely sensible notion, much less a hypothesis.
>
Now as to your assertion about "intelligent design" being able to
somehow consider all the possibilities, I don't think so. Tell me how
you would model all the possible permutations of a yeast sized genome.
All of them. And that's not about just flashing permutations of ATCG
into memory, that's running a simulation on each. So your assertion ---
>

 ... Again, this
constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>

>
--- is trivially false (on top of being proposed to follow a
foolish premise).
>
Why would you expect people to follow you down a poorly conceived
speculation that is absolutely full of ill-informed speculations
that pile on top of obviously flawed premises? Moreover, why
don't you apply an internal editor to weed out foolish ideas
before you post them?
>

>
LD, your post may be a personal best in terms of count of overblown
adjectives, insults, and misconceived assertions. But don't let that
allow you to become complacent.

>
You can't expect too much science in response to a post that had
none to respond to. And yet, my response hit directly at the flaws
in your assertions.
>
Suggesting that evolution HAS to explore ALL available search space
is simultaneously absurd and unnecessary. And yet you suggested that
very thing. And now, you deflect when that defect is laid at
your feet. Anybody reading this knows how to interpret that.
>

>
Here's a review of what I said:
>
<quote>
>
The limits of NS are not simply due to physically possible organisms.
It's much tighter constraint. The mechanism of "differential
reproductive success" is a blunt instrument, rightly described as
explaining the survival but not arrival of the fittest.
>
To elaborate my hypotheses (not proofs):
>
1. NS, along with any other naturalistic mechanisms, do not have the
logical capacity to fully traverse the solution space, regardless of
time available. Some (many) areas of the fitness landscape will be
islands, local maxima, inaccessible via gradualistic pathways (e.g.
monotonically increasing fitness functions). These are however
accessible to intelligent design.

You are getting revisionist here. Your over-arching premise is that
current life exhibits complexity that is inaccessible to biological
evolution. To support that, you're going on about how evolution can't
explore the full landscape of theoretically possible genomes.
The connection between those two is BS. You have not and cannot
establish that it is necessary for evolution to explore all possible
genomes to produce the observed biological landscape. So the
whole line of your argumentation is nonsensical.
Moreover, the things evolution deniers cite as "impossible" for
evolution to produce bear no resemblance to remote islands on a
fitness landscape. Not blood coagulation, not the immune system,
not regulator networks, not developmental pathways.
Nothing they can cite. Indeed, these all have simpler forms and
reuse basic biochemical mechanisms.

2. The time/material resources of the universe allow exploration of only
a small fraction of even the accessible solutions. Again, this
constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>
Does the burden of proof for these hypotheses rest exclusively with ID?
Not at all. Naturalism, if being intellectually curious, honest, and
open-minded, will ask the same questions and seek to answer them.
>
</quote)
>
Statement 1 is a postulate (i.e. I'm hypothesising) that NS is unable to
fully traverse the solution space. I made this statement (and the
second) to clarify that my contention is this: the limits of NS are more
than the obvious and necessary, e.g. that NS can produce only
"physically possible organisms".
>
Here's what I did NOT say or suggest: "that evolution HAS to explore ALL
available search space." Rather, I suggested that evolution would not be
able to explore all available search space. Which is a very different
claim (and I assume one you would agree with?).
>
I also state that ID has does not have this constraint, i.e. an
omniscient designer would have access all physically possible organisms.

My my my. An Omniscient Designer?
So yours is the theory of Omniscient Design.
About your Gish Gallop: your nag just threw a shoe.
But I'll give you this, the tautology in your claim is something
to behold. An all knowing designer would know how to design.
It's a bit unclear why you took the time to type that out, but if
that's where you want to hang your hat, my hat's off to you. It
seems entirely in character.
I had frankly hoped to push you into trying to apply some biochemical
specifics into  your rhetoric but you went in a completely different
direction  toward even more abstract hand waving.
But I must comment. You were asked why your Design "Science" doesn't
act like actual science and ask questions like who, what, why, where,
and how. You have at least answered the who question.
Your who is an Omniscient Designer. It would be nice if you could
be honest enough to make that clear to people who don't read this
small selection of posts.