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

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 15:25:36 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 13/03/2025 4:03 am, LDagget wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 6:47:10 +0000, MarkE wrote:
 

On 12/03/2025 11:09 am, LDagget wrote:

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

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

...

small selection of posts.
>

>
Look, we'll probably always strongly disagree, but a rhetorical boxing
match is at the expense of interesting discussion. I am willing to
examine the less certain aspects of my own position.
>
1. I've been quite open about being a mainstream Christian, therefore
belief in an omniscient designer is assumed. The only reason I mentioned
it here was to contrast solution space access, even at risk of stating
the obvious. Not sure what your concern with this is?

 
You are asserting ID as an alternative to evolution. You borrow
from the ID movement that exists, riding on their shoulders.
They have religiously denied that their claims about the designer
are specific to their God.
 
They do this for well documented reasons.
 
It is foundationally dishonest to ride their coattails but retreat
to claiming you want to refer to an omniscient designer when you
are pressed and find it to be rhetorically convenient.
 
You assert that evolution cannot create the complexity observed in
the biochemistry of living organisms. My undergraduate degree was
in biochemistry, my further degrees and work expanded upon that
such that I have a strong background in biochemistry, immunology,
regulatory networks, biopolymer structure, and metabolic networks.
And as a companion interest, I have studied evolution.
 
So when you make these claims, as sloppily as you do, I take
some offense at the fact of how wrong they are. I also take offense
when someone falsely claims that other countries pay for tariffs.
 
If you aren't talking about an abstract notion of a Designer, and
are instead limiting yourself to a cartoon of an Omniscient,
Omnipotent, Omnipresent God, then why go through the deceit of
labeling them a designer. Be honest and just say "God did it."
 
The raison d'etat for saying "designer" instead of god is well
documented. It was a scheme conspired to pretend it wasn't about
god but was a neutral analysis that could compete with evolution
because certain people were afraid that children who learned
about evolution would not feel the need to believe in god.
This in concert with attempts to bypass US Constitutional bans
on pushing specific religious beliefs in public schools.
 
So you invoking a "designer" tars you with that legacy.
You can try to avoid it, but when you retreat to a triple-
omni god we're left to ask
 
  ---  why did you ever reference a designer?
 
 

2. As I said above, you interpreted me to be saying "that evolution HAS
to explore ALL available search space." I clarified that my meaning was
not that, but rather the postulate "that evolution would NOT be able to
explore all available search space." Do you accept this?

 
Your claim was that evolution can't account for observed complexity
because of its limitation, and to expand upon those limitations
you point out that evolution can't explore the entire hypothetically
possible genomic landscape. It was an odd thing to bring up because
it's trite and irrelevant. Nothing about the observed biochemical
complexity of life suggests it would have been necessary to have
been able to source from the entirety of the genomic landscape.
Thus your comments about exploring the entirety of the genomic
landscape is a nonsensical smokescreen.
 
Apparently, you wanted to dump on evolution because it can't consider
things your omniscient designer can. And now I can't help myself.
 
The evidence is against your omniscient designer drawing from an
unconstrained realm of the full conceptually possible genomic
landscape. If that was happening, why would we have the pairing of
the twin nested hierarchies? An omniscient designer would not have
such a constraint. They wouldn't have  that excuse for filling so
many life forms with kludgy solutions hobbled together from preexisting
structures and pathways.
 
 

3. I can appreciate there is some frustration in relation to the "what,
why, where, and how" questions. I'm not actively avoiding them, and have
given some broad suggestions here and there.
>
An example I've give before is this: it is entirely valid to seek to
show that human induced global warming is a real problem, regardless of
whether or not you have a solution.

 
That's not the same thing. That's about identifying a problem whether
or not you have a solution. That isn't remotely like talking about some
"designer" and religiously avoiding asking about when, where, and how.
 

Similarly, it is entirely valid to
seek to show that naturalistic explanations of origins are inadequate,
regardless of whether or not you offer an alternative hypothesis. That
would in and of itself be of profound importance and value. Offering an
alternative hypothesis (naturalistic or supernatural) would be also be
of profound importance and value, but not necessary to validate the
former.
>
Open to exploring this further.

 
And yet, you continue to wander away from your assertion that
naturalistic explanations can't account for the complexity observed
in living organism. Instead, you talk about how evolution can't
test the entirety of sequence space. In other words, you revert to
irrelevant asides. You talk about how an omniscient designer
could use any genomic sequence --- except that hasn't been observed
to have happened but rather the opposite.
 
Son, people can see you.
 

>
I see you are fond of recycling that particular put-down.

What particular put-down are you talking about?  ISTM his comments
above are the epitome of civility. 

Ironically his points echo mine, not that I expect anybody to
acknowledge that fact.

And I see you've chosen to double down. My offer of civil and open
discussion stands. Let me know if ever you're willing.

You have a habit of claiming "insult" whenever you avoid responding to
the substance.  That particular tactic reminds me of pounding on the
facts vs pounding on the table.

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