On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:30:07 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:10 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-23 04:22:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:You asked: what a homologous gene was not homeobox genes.
On 7/22/21 3:42 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:Homogeneous genes are similar
[snip]
WTF is a “homeologeous” gene? With that the rest of your vacuous >>>>> rhetoric
OK, but the evolutionary position that widely different animals of the >>>>>> animal kingdom evolved gradually through different and independent >>>>>> ways,
is evidence that evolution is so elastic, pliable and plastic that >>>>>> any discoveries can be stretched so as to fit into the evolutionary >>>>>> paradigm.
The fact that widely different animals of the animal kingdom are all >>>>>> controlled by homologous genes IE the same family of Master Control >>>>>> genes (hox genes) This demonstrates that evolution is not falsifiable. >>>>>>
goes poof.
Same WTF: what's a "homogeneous gene"?
or the same genes in different animals, which is characterized by
homeobox genes.>
http://www.eugenes.org/all/hgsummary.html
Maybe you should learn to use the copy/paste function of your computer.
Trying to retype things you haven't understood just reinforces the idea
that you understand very little. As usual, even apart from the typo,
your source does't say what you pretend: the word "homeobox" doesn't
occur in it.
The subject here was in reference to homologous genes among animals
which the chart shows.
To refresh your convenient amnesia:
"homologous genes IE the same family of Master Control genes (hox
genes)"
explicitly identifies *your* subject you reference is homologous hox
genes.
Clearly the *only* person who is ignoring your comments here is
yourself. Why not just admit your error instead of handwaving it away
or falsely accusing others of ignoring your comments?
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is >>>>>>> one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time
sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are
probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which
Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is
design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent
design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's
acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins
"biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not
designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is >>>>>>>> one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which
Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is
design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent
design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's
acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:08:00 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:30:07 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:10 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-23 04:22:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:You asked: what a homologous gene was not homeobox genes.
On 7/22/21 3:42 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:Homogeneous genes are similar
[snip]
WTF is a “homeologeous” gene? With that the rest of your vacuous >>>>>> rhetoric
OK, but the evolutionary position that widely different animals of the >>>>>>> animal kingdom evolved gradually through different and independent >>>>>>> ways,
is evidence that evolution is so elastic, pliable and plastic that >>>>>>> any discoveries can be stretched so as to fit into the evolutionary >>>>>>> paradigm.
The fact that widely different animals of the animal kingdom are all >>>>>>> controlled by homologous genes IE the same family of Master Control >>>>>>> genes (hox genes) This demonstrates that evolution is not falsifiable. >>>>>>>
goes poof.
Same WTF: what's a "homogeneous gene"?
or the same genes in different animals, which is characterized by
homeobox genes.>
http://www.eugenes.org/all/hgsummary.html
Maybe you should learn to use the copy/paste function of your computer. >>>> Trying to retype things you haven't understood just reinforces the idea >>>> that you understand very little. As usual, even apart from the typo,
your source does't say what you pretend: the word "homeobox" doesn't
occur in it.
The subject here was in reference to homologous genes among animals
which the chart shows.
To refresh your convenient amnesia:
"homologous genes IE the same family of Master Control genes (hox
genes)"
explicitly identifies *your* subject you reference is homologous hox
genes.
Clearly the *only* person who is ignoring your comments here is
yourself. Why not just admit your error instead of handwaving it away
or falsely accusing others of ignoring your comments?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is >>>>>>>> one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which
Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is
design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent
design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's
acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is >>>>>>>> one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which
Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is
design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent
design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's
acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expectDawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
On 2022-12-23 03:19:30 +0000, Ron Dean said:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is >>>>>>>>> one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which
Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's
acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Oh yes? Did Richard Dawkins ghost-write Crick's book?
Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expectDawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
And your own lack of belief (I presume) in the divinity of Zeus, Odin
and Shiva is based on what?
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:33:08 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2022-12-23 03:19:30 +0000, Ron Dean said:How many people can you name who believe and have faith in your pagan
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Oh yes? Did Richard Dawkins ghost-write Crick's book?
Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expectDawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >>> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
And your own lack of belief (I presume) in the divinity of Zeus, Odin
and Shiva is based on what?
gods today? Why bring in these pagan gods as a metaphor or allegory to
the one God in which most people in the US believe.
I question that you can
find any pagan worshippors.
OTOH there are people who are as dedicated to
and have succeeded in replacing God with evolution and Darwin and will
defend this "scientific" faith as will any other religious person.
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is >>>>>>>>> one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which
Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's
acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science
is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:33:08 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2022-12-23 03:19:30 +0000, Ron Dean said:How many people can you name who believe and have faith in your pagan
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Oh yes? Did Richard Dawkins ghost-write Crick's book?
Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expectDawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >>> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
And your own lack of belief (I presume) in the divinity of Zeus, Odin
and Shiva is based on what?
gods today? Why bring in these pagan gods as a metaphor or allegory to
the one God in which most people in the US believe. I question that you can find any pagan worshippors. OTOH there are people who are as dedicated to
and have succeeded in replacing God with evolution and Darwin and will
defend this "scientific" faith as will any other religious person.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:33:08 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2022-12-23 03:19:30 +0000, Ron Dean said:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Oh yes? Did Richard Dawkins ghost-write Crick's book?
Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expectDawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
And your own lack of belief (I presume) in the divinity of Zeus, Odin
and Shiva is based on what?
How many people can you name who believe and have faith in your pagan
gods today? Why bring in these pagan gods as a metaphor or allegory to
the one God in which most people in the US believe. I question that you can find any pagan worshippors. OTOH there are people who are as dedicated to and have succeeded in replacing God with evolution and Darwin and will defend this "scientific" faith as will any other religious person.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and >clearly points to a designer.
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >>> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer.
If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >answer.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science
is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or
correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early >Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:46:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and >> clearly points to a designer.
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
Then do so.
However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer.
Once again, nobody asked about the identity of your presumptive
designer.
If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
That's your obligation, not mine. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science
is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or
correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early >> Cambrian.
Ok. Now take the next step, and explain how those things are positive evidence for your presumptive designer.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over
millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first
appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and
purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Stipulating for argument's sake the above are designs, and stipulating
that you are more honest and unbiased than I could ever hope to be,
explain why your presumptive designer didn't design a Cambrian rabbit. Evolution has an answer. What does ID have?
On Dec 24, 2022 at 12:11:11 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:46:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and >>> clearly points to a designer.
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
Then do so.
However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer.
Once again, nobody asked about the identity of your presumptive
designer.
If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>> answer.
That's your obligation, not mine. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or
correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early >>> Cambrian.
Ok. Now take the next step, and explain how those things are positive
evidence for your presumptive designer.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first
appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Stipulating for argument's sake the above are designs, and stipulating
that you are more honest and unbiased than I could ever hope to be,
explain why your presumptive designer didn't design a Cambrian rabbit.
Evolution has an answer. What does ID have?
There is no known Cambrian critters that were land dwellers.
On Dec 24, 2022 at 12:11:11 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:46:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and >>> clearly points to a designer.
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
Then do so.
However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer.
Once again, nobody asked about the identity of your presumptive
designer.
If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>> answer.
That's your obligation, not mine. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or
correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early >>> Cambrian.
Ok. Now take the next step, and explain how those things are positive
evidence for your presumptive designer.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first
appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Stipulating for argument's sake the above are designs, and stipulating
that you are more honest and unbiased than I could ever hope to be,
explain why your presumptive designer didn't design a Cambrian rabbit.
Evolution has an answer. What does ID have?
There is no known Cambrian critters that were land dwellers.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 02:46:47 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 24, 2022 at 12:11:11 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:46:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer.
Then do so.
However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer.
Once again, nobody asked about the identity of your presumptive
designer.
If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>>> answer.
That's your obligation, not mine. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
Ok. Now take the next step, and explain how those things are positive
evidence for your presumptive designer.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first
appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Stipulating for argument's sake the above are designs, and stipulating
that you are more honest and unbiased than I could ever hope to be,
explain why your presumptive designer didn't design a Cambrian rabbit.
Evolution has an answer. What does ID have?
There is no known Cambrian critters that were land dwellers.
Don't play the parrot. Follow the evidence. Either:
1. There were Cambrian land dwellers, but left no fossil record, or
2. Your presumptive designer designed no Cambrian land dwellers.
But it's not that your presumptive designer was incapable of designing
land dwellers, since they eventually appeared millions of years later.
Once again, evolution has an answer for that delay. What does ID
have?
On Dec 25, 2022 at 2:31:00 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 02:46:47 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Obviously there was a time scale. 4.5 billion years ago the planet was molten lava, so no life could withstand heat. 3.8 years ago planet cooled sufficiently
wrote:
On Dec 24, 2022 at 12:11:11 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:46:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer.
Then do so.
However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer.
Once again, nobody asked about the identity of your presumptive
designer.
If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>>>> answer.
That's your obligation, not mine. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensoryI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
Ok. Now take the next step, and explain how those things are positive >>>> evidence for your presumptive designer.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Stipulating for argument's sake the above are designs, and stipulating >>>> that you are more honest and unbiased than I could ever hope to be,
explain why your presumptive designer didn't design a Cambrian rabbit. >>>> Evolution has an answer. What does ID have?
There is no known Cambrian critters that were land dwellers.
Don't play the parrot. Follow the evidence. Either:
1. There were Cambrian land dwellers, but left no fossil record, or
2. Your presumptive designer designed no Cambrian land dwellers.
But it's not that your presumptive designer was incapable of designing
land dwellers, since they eventually appeared millions of years later.
Once again, evolution has an answer for that delay. What does ID
have?
for single cell organisms. 540 mlliion years ago, then the cambrian sea creatures:
so, mammals came along in their time slot when the enviroment was suitable.
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was >>>>>>>>>> not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, >>>>>>>>>> that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding >>>>>>>>>> biological research, but this is far from the case. It is
difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out >>>>>>>>>> exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest
possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust >>>>>>>>>> them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was >>>>>>>>>>> not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, >>>>>>>>>>> that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding >>>>>>>>>>> biological research, but this is far from the case. It is >>>>>>>>>>> difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out >>>>>>>>>>> exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest >>>>>>>>>>> possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust >>>>>>>>>>> them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
That emphasis confuses the issue. If biologists require their observations >to agree with theory, the theory has precedence. This is not the ideal. The >observation is empirical, the theory is an interpretation of an observation; >it is about what is observed but not the observation itself. Tricky stuff
On Dec 25, 2022 at 2:31:00 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 02:46:47 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Obviously there was a time scale. 4.5 billion years ago the planet was molten >lava, so no life could withstand heat. 3.8 years ago planet cooled >sufficiently
wrote:
On Dec 24, 2022 at 12:11:11 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:46:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer.
Then do so.
However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer.
Once again, nobody asked about the identity of your presumptive
designer.
If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>>>> answer.
That's your obligation, not mine. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensoryI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
Ok. Now take the next step, and explain how those things are positive >>>> evidence for your presumptive designer.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Stipulating for argument's sake the above are designs, and stipulating >>>> that you are more honest and unbiased than I could ever hope to be,
explain why your presumptive designer didn't design a Cambrian rabbit. >>>> Evolution has an answer. What does ID have?
There is no known Cambrian critters that were land dwellers.
Don't play the parrot. Follow the evidence. Either:
1. There were Cambrian land dwellers, but left no fossil record, or
2. Your presumptive designer designed no Cambrian land dwellers.
But it's not that your presumptive designer was incapable of designing
land dwellers, since they eventually appeared millions of years later.
Once again, evolution has an answer for that delay. What does ID
have?
for single cell organisms. 540 mlliion years ago, then the cambrian sea >creatures:
so, mammals came along in their time slot when the enviroment was suitable.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 12:39:44 -0600, Bill <freon96@gmail.com> wrote:
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
No, *Hemidactylus* did not author the following:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was >>>>>>>>>>>> not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, >>>>>>>>>>>> that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding >>>>>>>>>>>> biological research, but this is far from the case. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest >>>>>>>>>>>> possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust >>>>>>>>>>>> them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
That emphasis confuses the issue. If biologists require their observations >> to agree with theory, the theory has precedence. This is not the ideal. The >> observation is empirical, the theory is an interpretation of an observation; >> it is about what is observed but not the observation itself. Tricky stuff
Once again, theory explains observations. Write that backwards on
your forehead, to remind yourself each morning. Perhaps that would
help you from confusing yourself.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 12:39:44 -0600, Bill <freon96@gmail.com> wrote:Bill subscribes to the theory we are all deluded dumbasses which drives
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
No, *Hemidactylus* did not author the following:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was >>>>>>>>>>>>> not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, >>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part >>>>>>>>>>>>> in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To >>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more >>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints >>>>>>>>>>>>> to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly >>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make >>>>>>>>>>>>> mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already >>>>>>>>>>>>> very well understood.
That emphasis confuses the issue. If biologists require their
observations to agree with theory, the theory has precedence. This is
not the ideal. The observation is empirical, the theory is an
interpretation of an observation; it is about what is observed but not
the observation itself. Tricky stuff
Once again, theory explains observations. Write that backwards on
your forehead, to remind yourself each morning. Perhaps that would
help you from confusing yourself.
his every post. This is subsidiary to his theory that knowledge of reality
is fickle if not nonexistent. How could he then “know” that?
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 12:39:44 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:Bill subscribes to the theory we are all deluded dumbasses which drives his every post. This is subsidiary to his theory that knowledge of reality is fickle if not nonexistent. How could he then “know” that?
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
No, *Hemidactylus* did not author the following:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was >>>>>>>>>>>>> not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, >>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part >>>>>>>>>>>>> in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To >>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more >>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints >>>>>>>>>>>>> to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly >>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make >>>>>>>>>>>>> mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already >>>>>>>>>>>>> very well understood.
That emphasis confuses the issue. If biologists require their
observations to agree with theory, the theory has precedence. This is >>> not the ideal. The observation is empirical, the theory is an
interpretation of an observation; it is about what is observed but not >>> the observation itself. Tricky stuff
Once again, theory explains observations. Write that backwards on
your forehead, to remind yourself each morning. Perhaps that would
help you from confusing yourself.
I believe that humans can be massively intelligent. Consider the ingenious ways people have devised creating all manner of explanations for things they didn't understand. Ant explanation may be elegant and satisfying and convince the smartest people and still be dead wrong. History offers innumerable examples of intelligent people believing nonsense.
It may be that what we observe doesn't really matter much simply because what we believe about the observation is what we care about. An observation is one thing, the interpretation of the observation, what it means and how it ramifies, is something entirely different. No one believes this of course, convinced that human intelligence leads, inevitably to omniscience.
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 12:39:44 -0600, Bill <freon96@gmail.com> wrote:Bill subscribes to the theory we are all deluded dumbasses which drives
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
No, *Hemidactylus* did not author the following:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To >>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very well understood.
That emphasis confuses the issue. If biologists require their
observations to agree with theory, the theory has precedence. This is
not the ideal. The observation is empirical, the theory is an
interpretation of an observation; it is about what is observed but not >>>> the observation itself. Tricky stuff
Once again, theory explains observations. Write that backwards on
your forehead, to remind yourself each morning. Perhaps that would
help you from confusing yourself.
his every post. This is subsidiary to his theory that knowledge of reality >> is fickle if not nonexistent. How could he then “know” that?
I believe that humans can be massively intelligent. Consider the ingenious >ways people have devised creating all manner of explanations for things they >didn't understand. Ant explanation may be elegant and satisfying and >convince the smartest people and still be dead wrong. History offers >innumerable examples of intelligent people believing nonsense.
It may be that what we observe doesn't really matter much simply because >what we believe about the observation is what we care about. An observation >is one thing, the interpretation of the observation, what it means and how >it ramifies, is something entirely different.
No one believes this of
course, convinced that human intelligence leads, inevitably to omniscience.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 15:41:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
Obviously there was a time scale. 4.5 billion years ago the planet was molten >>lava, so no life could withstand heat. 3.8 years ago planet cooled >>sufficiently
for single cell organisms. 540 mlliion years ago, then the cambrian sea >>creatures:
so, mammals came along in their time slot when the enviroment was suitable.
Once again, you claim to have identified positive evidence for ID.
That there was *a* time-scale is consistent with both evolution *and*
ID, and so is not positive evidence for either. Even you should
understand that your presumptive Designer could have used *any*
time-scale.
In order for that *specific* time-scale you describe above to be
evidence for ID, you need to show how its a *designed* time-scale, as
opposed to one caused by unguided natural processes.
Once again, your presumptive Designer was capable of doing all those
things you admit happened eventually. Once again, the question you
need to answer is, why did your presumptive Designer follow that
*specific* time-scale? Once again, "atheist" material science has
answers. Based on your posts, you and other ID advocates have none.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 14:50:41 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 15:41:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Obviously there was a time scale. 4.5 billion years ago the planet was molten
lava, so no life could withstand heat. 3.8 years ago planet cooled >>sufficiently
for single cell organisms. 540 mlliion years ago, then the cambrian sea >>creatures:
so, mammals came along in their time slot when the enviroment was suitable.
Once again, you claim to have identified positive evidence for ID.
That there was *a* time-scale is consistent with both evolution *and*
ID, and so is not positive evidence for either. Even you should
understand that your presumptive Designer could have used *any*
time-scale.
In order for that *specific* time-scale you describe above to be
evidence for ID, you need to show how its a *designed* time-scale, as >opposed to one caused by unguided natural processes.
Once again, your presumptive Designer was capable of doing all those--
things you admit happened eventually. Once again, the question you
need to answer is, why did your presumptive Designer follow that
*specific* time-scale? Once again, "atheist" material science has
answers. Based on your posts, you and other ID advocates have none. Apparently the ID advocates aka cdesign proponentsists have left the building. What a coincidink.
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 8:30:32 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 14:50:41 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>I guesss their time slot ran out.
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 15:41:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Apparently the ID advocates aka cdesign proponentsists have left the
wrote:
Obviously there was a time scale. 4.5 billion years ago the planet was molten
lava, so no life could withstand heat. 3.8 years ago planet cooled
sufficiently
for single cell organisms. 540 mlliion years ago, then the cambrian sea >> >>creatures:
so, mammals came along in their time slot when the enviroment was suitable.
Once again, you claim to have identified positive evidence for ID.
That there was *a* time-scale is consistent with both evolution *and*
ID, and so is not positive evidence for either. Even you should
understand that your presumptive Designer could have used *any*
time-scale.
In order for that *specific* time-scale you describe above to be
evidence for ID, you need to show how its a *designed* time-scale, as
opposed to one caused by unguided natural processes.
Once again, your presumptive Designer was capable of doing all those
things you admit happened eventually. Once again, the question you
need to answer is, why did your presumptive Designer follow that
*specific* time-scale? Once again, "atheist" material science has
answers. Based on your posts, you and other ID advocates have none.
building. What a coincidink.
On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 20:48:41 -0800 (PST), erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 8:30:32 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 14:50:41 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 15:41:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>>> >wrote: >>>>> Obviously there was a time scale. 4.5 billion years ago the planet was >>>>> molten>> >>lava, so no life could withstand heat. 3.8 years ago planet >>>>> cooled>> >>sufficiently>> >>for single cell organisms. 540 mlliionI guesss their time slot ran out.
Apparently the ID advocates aka cdesign proponentsists have left the>>years ago, then the cambrian sea>> >>creatures:>> >>so, mammals came >>>>> along in their time slot when the enviroment was suitable.>> >>> >>> >>>>> >Once again, you claim to have identified positive evidence for ID.>> >>>>> >That there was *a* time-scale is consistent with both evolution
*and*>> >ID, and so is not positive evidence for either. Even you
should>> >understand that your presumptive Designer could have used
*any*>> >time-scale.>> >>> >In order for that *specific* time-scale you >>>>> describe above to be>> >evidence for ID, you need to show how its a
*designed* time-scale, as>> >opposed to one caused by unguided natural >>>>> processes.>> >>> >Once again, your presumptive Designer was capable of >>>>> doing all those>> >things you admit happened eventually. Once again, >>>>> the question you>> >need to answer is, why did your presumptive
Designer follow that>> >*specific* time-scale? Once again, "atheist" >>>>> material science has>> >answers. Based on your posts, you and other ID >>>>> advocates have none.
building. What a coincidink.
That might explain why all of their arguments are re-runs.
On 2022-12-28 10:02:25 +0000, jillery said:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 20:48:41 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 8:30:32 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 14:50:41 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 15:41:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>>> >wrote:I guesss their time slot ran out.
Apparently the ID advocates aka cdesign proponentsists have left the>> >>>> building. What a coincidink.Obviously there was a time scale. 4.5 billion years ago the planet was >>>>>> molten>> >>lava, so no life could withstand heat. 3.8 years ago planet >>>>>> cooled>> >>sufficiently>> >>for single cell organisms. 540 mlliion >>>>>> years ago, then the cambrian sea>> >>creatures:>> >>so, mammals came >>>>>> along in their time slot when the enviroment was suitable.>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >Once again, you claim to have identified positive evidence for ID.>> >>>>>> >That there was *a* time-scale is consistent with both evolution
*and*>> >ID, and so is not positive evidence for either. Even you >>>>>> should>> >understand that your presumptive Designer could have used >>>>>> *any*>> >time-scale.>> >>> >In order for that *specific* time-scale you >>>>>> describe above to be>> >evidence for ID, you need to show how its a >>>>>> *designed* time-scale, as>> >opposed to one caused by unguided natural >>>>>> processes.>> >>> >Once again, your presumptive Designer was capable of >>>>>> doing all those>> >things you admit happened eventually. Once again, >>>>>> the question you>> >need to answer is, why did your presumptive
Designer follow that>> >*specific* time-scale? Once again, "atheist" >>>>>> material science has>> >answers. Based on your posts, you and other ID >>>>>> advocates have none.
That might explain why all of their arguments are re-runs.
A few years ago I read an article that I have now, unfortunately, lost,
by someone -- Argentinian, I think -- who had done some calculations
and simulations that indicated that the fine tuning was nowhere near as
fine as it is usually claimed. He allowed quite large variations of the >fundamental constants from their actual values and found that a stable >universe was possible just the same. The essential conclusion was that
the importance of fine tuning was greatly exaggerated.
Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the author or the journal (a >serious one, I think) in which it was published, so I can't say much
more than that. However, someone else may have come across it.
A few years ago I read an article that I have now, unfortunately, lost,
by someone -- Argentinian, I think -- who had done some calculations
and simulations that indicated that the fine tuning was nowhere near as
fine as it is usually claimed. He allowed quite large variations of the fundamental constants from their actual values and found that a stable universe was possible just the same. The essential conclusion was that
the importance of fine tuning was greatly exaggerated.
Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the author or the journal (a serious one, I think) in which it was published, so I can't say much
more than that. However, someone else may have come across it.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your answer.
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to >>>>>>>>>> *other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >>> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science
is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or
correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and >> clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that >> points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study >>>>>> what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.)
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he >>>>>>>>> now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is
equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore,
your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer.
And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points
away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much
of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of
the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does
the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science
is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or
correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early >> Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over
millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first
appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and
purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground.
You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
On 12/22/22 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
If that is true (and I think we both know it isn't),
then being a theist
would confer the same problems, for the same reason (or, more
accurately, for the same lack of reason).
On Dec 28, 2022 at 11:56:58 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" ><specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/22/22 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Actually, no I do not. Until I see something differently, it stands!
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
[...]Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >>> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
If that is true (and I think we both know it isn't),
then being a theistYes, theism is also a paradigm, just the same. The lack of
would confer the same problems, for the same reason (or, more
accurately, for the same lack of reason).
reason cuts both ways.
On Dec 28, 2022 at 11:56:58 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/22/22 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
If that is true (and I think we both know it isn't),
Actually, no I do not. Until I see something differently, it stands!
then being a theist
would confer the same problems, for the same reason (or, more
accurately, for the same lack of reason).
Yes, theism is also a paradigm, just the same. The lack of
reason cuts both ways.
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" ><specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and >>> clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that >>> points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence >>> please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>> answer.
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving >>>>>>>>> that they expressed such comments?
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent >>>>>>>>>>>> with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created >>>>>>>>>> in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence? >>>>>>>>>>
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution >>>>>>> is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous >>>>>>> to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is >>>>>>> the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been >>>>>>> designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. >>>>>>> .. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If
that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You
can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is
equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore,
your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer.
And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points
away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much
of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of
the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does
the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One
of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or
correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early >>> Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first
appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground.
You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >intentional design.
On 12/22/22 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and
overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
If that is true (and I think we both know it isn't), then being a theist would confer the same problems, for the same reason (or, more
accurately, for the same lack of reason).
On 29/12/2022 04:56, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/22/22 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
[...]Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and
overrides
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
If that is true (and I think we both know it isn't), then being a theist
would confer the same problems, for the same reason (or, more
accurately, for the same lack of reason).
I have a recollection (but I can't remember where it was from, and
therefore can't confirm it) that Dawkins fell for the Argument from
Design as a teenager (as Darwin did). This leads me to a suspicion that >Dawkins sees life as appearing designed ("designoid") as ego protection
- to make his earlier error less egregious. (Live doesn't look designed
to me - I don't see complexity as a mark of design.)
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
[...]
Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground.
You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and intentional design.
On Dec 28, 2022 at 11:56:58 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/22/22 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Actually, no I do not. Until I see something differently, it stands!
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
[...]Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides >>> everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
If that is true (and I think we both know it isn't),
then being a theistYes, theism is also a paradigm, just the same. The lack of
would confer the same problems, for the same reason (or, more
accurately, for the same lack of reason).
reason cuts both ways.
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for >>>>>>>>>> evolution.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of >>>>>>>>>>> evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent >>>>>>>>>>> design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided.
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences >>>>>>>> unless the process involved is already very well understood.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence >>>> please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>>> answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is
equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore,
your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer.
And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points
away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much
of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of
the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does
the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don'tI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned
prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting
that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first
appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize
this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground.
You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the
Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and
intentional design.
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus
or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence >>>>> please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>>>> answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is
equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore,
your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer.
And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of
the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does
the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensoryI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
intentional design.
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus
or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
I consider homeobox (hox) genes
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by >scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now >called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts, >Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and >>>>>>>>>>>>> _Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever >>>>>>>>>>>> presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as >>>>>>>>> hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly >>>>>>>>> even began to state the case.”
st
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>> that is so, then ID also has sunsnothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of
design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate andNot true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence >>>>> please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your >>>>> answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is
equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore,
your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer.
And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of
the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does
the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensoryI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are
obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly >>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
intentional design.
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus
or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts, Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:First off Hox and homeobox genes are not synonymous. Hox are but a subset
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
st
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>>> that is so, then ID also has sunsnothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
I have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genesJust the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >>>> intentional design.Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence >>>>>> please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is >>>>> equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore, >>>>> your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>>>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of >>>>> the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>>>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory >>>>>>> illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.I have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus
or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by
scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now
called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts, >> Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
of homeobox. Still hox genes are homeobox genes.
Second humans and mice have four Hox clusters.
Your set up is
confused as hell, which undermines your dogma for design.
Homeobox genes and the Hox cluster are a result of massive gene
duplications and subsequent selection driven divergence showing a
contingent nature of evolutionary history NOT design.
Duplication obviates
the creationist canard of made from scratch (de novo) components.
Duplicates can also drift into nonsense segments.
Amongst your beloved Hox clusters there lie pseudogenes. From a design perspective that’s inelegant and wasteful:
“Among these copies, we found
that HoxD4aiiiΨ, HoxD9aΨ, and HoxD10aΨ in 4nF1 were pseudogenes (Fig. (Fig.2).2). Two deletions at codons 316 and 317 in the coding region of HoxD4aiiiΨ suggested that it was a pseudogene. The alignment of the
putative HoxD4a sequences is shown in Fig. Fig.2a.2a. HoxD9aΨ has become a
pseudogene because a stop codon prematurely terminates expression of the full-length functional product (Fig. (Fig.2b).2b). An insertion was observed at codon 593 in the HoxD10aΨ coding region; alignment of the putative HoxD10a duplicated sequences is shown in Fig. Fig.2c.2c. HoxD10aΨ
had an inserted G nucleotide compared with HoxD10aiii, whereas a T in HoxD4aΨ was replaced by a G compared with HoxD4ai. Thus, non-functionalization is a possible fate for some duplicated Hox genes.”
[…]
“We speculate that dosage effects generated selection pressure from the loss of Hox genes or the formation of pseudogenes after whole genome duplication. This pressure is consistent with the expectation that there
are Hox clusters in the 4nF1 genome that have lost functional Hox genes due to the reduction of redundancy following the polyploidization event.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5637053/
And of homeoboxes more generally?:
“We have identified all homeobox genes and pseudogenes in the euchromatic regions of the human genome, finding many unannotated, incorrectly
annotated, unnamed, misnamed or misclassified genes and pseudogenes. We describe 300 human homeobox loci, which we divide into 235 probable functional genes and 65 probable pseudogenes. These totals include 3 genes with partial homeoboxes and 13 pseudogenes that lack homeoboxes but are clearly derived from homeobox genes. These figures exclude the repetitive DUX1 to DUX5 homeobox sequences of which we identified 35 probable pseudogenes, with many more expected in heterochromatic regions.”
It pays to learn about evolution of homeobox genes before attributing
design to them. Nothing to see here but mere evolution by gene duplication and subsequent (non)functional shift. Susumu Ohno had advanced the notion of gene duplication and divergence long ago!
On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 07:41:03 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >>>> intentional design.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence >>>>>> please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is >>>>> equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore, >>>>> your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>>>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of >>>>> the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>>>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory >>>>>>> illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.I have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus
or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
<the following link is from Ron Dean, not jillery>
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
The above link describes what might reasonably be described as a state
of the art visual system for the Cambrian. However, it doesn't even
hint of adjustments for focus or light intensity or sensitivity to
color, hallmarks of modern "perfectly functioning" eyes.
One thing the introduction points out is that light-sensing organs are usually soft-bodied, and so their fossilization is among the rarest of
the rare. This fact by itself plausibly explains the lack of
precursor eyes in the fossil record; no designer required.
For a broader perspective, I recommend reading "In The Blink Of An
Eye" by Andrew Parker, which hypothesizes that the evolution of
light-sensing organs is the primary driving force behind the Cambrian Explosion. In a world of the blind, even half an eye is a tremendous advantage.
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
What you have done on numerous occasions is what you do below, to
repeat a list of facts not in dispute, which you *claim* supports your presumption of purposeful design, but completely fail to connect the
dots between those facts and how they are evidence of purposeful
design, as opposed to evidence of how rm/ns created complex biological systems. It's as if you're blind to this gaping hole in your
expressed argumentation.
I consider homeobox (hox) genes
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by
scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now
called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts, >> Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 7:38:41 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 07:41:03 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<spec...@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time
sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are
probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is
design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent
design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins
"biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not
designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>>
designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that
evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a
master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding
the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"? >>>>>>>>>
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact! >>>>>>>
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a >>>>> designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is >>>>> equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore, >>>>> your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>>>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of >>>>> the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social >>>>> Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>>>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory >>>>>>> illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of scienceI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit
based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again,
you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over
millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly >>>>>> advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground.
You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the
Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >>>> intentional design.
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus >>> or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
<the following link is from Ron Dean, not jillery>
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
The above link describes what might reasonably be described as a state
of the art visual system for the Cambrian. However, it doesn't even
hint of adjustments for focus or light intensity or sensitivity to
color, hallmarks of modern "perfectly functioning" eyes.
One thing the introduction points out is that light-sensing organs are usually soft-bodied, and so their fossilization is among the rarest of
the rare. This fact by itself plausibly explains the lack of
precursor eyes in the fossil record; no designer required.
For a broader perspective, I recommend reading "In The Blink Of An
Eye" by Andrew Parker, which hypothesizes that the evolution of light-sensing organs is the primary driving force behind the Cambrian Explosion. In a world of the blind, even half an eye is a tremendous advantage.
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
What you have done on numerous occasions is what you do below, to
repeat a list of facts not in dispute, which you *claim* supports your presumption of purposeful design, but completely fail to connect the
dots between those facts and how they are evidence of purposeful
design, as opposed to evidence of how rm/ns created complex biological systems. It's as if you're blind to this gaping hole in your
expressed argumentation.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla, this strongly suggest deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
I consider homeobox (hox) genes
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >> ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by
scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now >> called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts,
Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
[ … ]
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla,
this strongly suggest
deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 7:38:41 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 07:41:03 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>>>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>>>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >>>>> intentional design.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time
sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>>>
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"? >>>>>>>>>>
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact! >>>>>>>>
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a >>>>>> designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is >>>>>> equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore, >>>>>> your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>>>>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of >>>>>> the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social >>>>>> Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>>>>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory >>>>>>>> illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.I have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>>>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over
millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly >>>>>>> advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and
purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus >>>> or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
<the following link is from Ron Dean, not jillery>
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
The above link describes what might reasonably be described as a state
of the art visual system for the Cambrian. However, it doesn't even
hint of adjustments for focus or light intensity or sensitivity to
color, hallmarks of modern "perfectly functioning" eyes.
One thing the introduction points out is that light-sensing organs are
usually soft-bodied, and so their fossilization is among the rarest of
the rare. This fact by itself plausibly explains the lack of
precursor eyes in the fossil record; no designer required.
For a broader perspective, I recommend reading "In The Blink Of An
Eye" by Andrew Parker, which hypothesizes that the evolution of
light-sensing organs is the primary driving force behind the Cambrian
Explosion. In a world of the blind, even half an eye is a tremendous
advantage.
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
What you have done on numerous occasions is what you do below, to
repeat a list of facts not in dispute, which you *claim* supports your
presumption of purposeful design, but completely fail to connect the
dots between those facts and how they are evidence of purposeful
design, as opposed to evidence of how rm/ns created complex biological
systems. It's as if you're blind to this gaping hole in your
expressed argumentation.
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla, this strongly suggest
deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 7:38:41 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 07:41:03 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>>>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>>>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >>>>> intentional design.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time
sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>>>
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"? >>>>>>>>>>
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact! >>>>>>>>
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a >>>>>> designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is >>>>>> equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore, >>>>>> your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>>>>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of >>>>>> the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social >>>>>> Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>>>>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory >>>>>>>> illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.I have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>>>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over
millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly >>>>>>> advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and
purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus >>>> or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
<the following link is from Ron Dean, not jillery>
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
The above link describes what might reasonably be described as a state
of the art visual system for the Cambrian. However, it doesn't even
hint of adjustments for focus or light intensity or sensitivity to
color, hallmarks of modern "perfectly functioning" eyes.
One thing the introduction points out is that light-sensing organs are
usually soft-bodied, and so their fossilization is among the rarest of
the rare. This fact by itself plausibly explains the lack of
precursor eyes in the fossil record; no designer required.
For a broader perspective, I recommend reading "In The Blink Of An
Eye" by Andrew Parker, which hypothesizes that the evolution of
light-sensing organs is the primary driving force behind the Cambrian
Explosion. In a world of the blind, even half an eye is a tremendous
advantage.
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
What you have done on numerous occasions is what you do below, to
repeat a list of facts not in dispute, which you *claim* supports your
presumption of purposeful design, but completely fail to connect the
dots between those facts and how they are evidence of purposeful
design, as opposed to evidence of how rm/ns created complex biological
systems. It's as if you're blind to this gaping hole in your
expressed argumentation.
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla, this strongly suggest
deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) >life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
I consider homeobox (hox) genes
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >>> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >>> ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by
scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now >>> called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts, >>> Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention biology at all until you get an answer to that.
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 7:38:41 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:If you choose to ignore my recent followup else-thread. Homeobox genes reinforce the evolutionary principle of duplication and divergence. No designer need apply.
On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 07:41:03 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>>>>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>>>>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >>>>>> intentional design.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
wrote:
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time
sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are
probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is
design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent
design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"? >>>>>>>>>>>
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact! >>>>>>>>>
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>>>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a >>>>>>> designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is >>>>>>> equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore, >>>>>>> your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>>>>>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>>>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>>>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of >>>>>>> the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social >>>>>>> Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>>>>>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory >>>>>>>>> illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of scienceI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>>>>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>>>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over
millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly >>>>>>>> advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and
purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>>>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is >>>>>>> deliberate arrangement?
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus >>>>> or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
<the following link is from Ron Dean, not jillery>
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
The above link describes what might reasonably be described as a state
of the art visual system for the Cambrian. However, it doesn't even
hint of adjustments for focus or light intensity or sensitivity to
color, hallmarks of modern "perfectly functioning" eyes.
One thing the introduction points out is that light-sensing organs are
usually soft-bodied, and so their fossilization is among the rarest of
the rare. This fact by itself plausibly explains the lack of
precursor eyes in the fossil record; no designer required.
For a broader perspective, I recommend reading "In The Blink Of An
Eye" by Andrew Parker, which hypothesizes that the evolution of
light-sensing organs is the primary driving force behind the Cambrian
Explosion. In a world of the blind, even half an eye is a tremendous
advantage.
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
What you have done on numerous occasions is what you do below, to
repeat a list of facts not in dispute, which you *claim* supports your
presumption of purposeful design, but completely fail to connect the
dots between those facts and how they are evidence of purposeful
design, as opposed to evidence of how rm/ns created complex biological
systems. It's as if you're blind to this gaping hole in your
expressed argumentation.
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla, this strongly suggest
deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) >> life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
If you cannot address that your last sentence is hyperbolic bafflegab.
On 2023-01-01 14:50:46 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla,
You do realize, I hope, that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't something
that took place in one day, or even over seven days, à la Genesis, but
took around 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time.
https://www.worldatlas.com/science/what-was-the-cambrian-explosion.html
this strongly suggest
deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
Only to people who start with a belief in a designer.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) >> life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention biology at all until you get an answer to that.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 10:52:04 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-01 14:50:46 +0000, Ron Dean said:That was the length of the Cambrian era, but the "exploson" happened in a short time(geologically speaking) near the beginning of the Cambrian.
[ … ]
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla,
You do realize, I hope, that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't something
that took place in one day, or even over seven days, à la Genesis, but
took around 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time.
The Cambrian lasted 55 million years, but some paleontologist say the "explosion" was 5-10 million years in length.
https://www.worldatlas.com/science/what-was-the-cambrian-explosion.htmlOk, where is the empirical evidence based on the fossil record?
this strongly suggest
deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
Only to people who start with a belief in a designer.
The fact is, the fossil record is a reliable timetable.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) >>> life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<spec...@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >> intentional design.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
wrote:
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time
sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>
research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if
atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence
please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is
equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore,
your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of
the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensoryI have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>> correlated with objective evidence.
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over
millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus
or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color differences.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
I have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts, Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 10:52:04 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-01 14:50:46 +0000, Ron Dean said:That was the length of the Cambrian era, but the "exploson" happened in a short time(geologically speaking) near the beginning of the Cambrian.
[ … ]
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla,
You do realize, I hope, that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't something
that took place in one day, or even over seven days, à la Genesis, but
took around 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time.
The Cambrian lasted 55 million years, but some paleontologist say the "explosion" was 5-10 million years in length.
https://www.worldatlas.com/science/what-was-the-cambrian-explosion.htmlOk, where is the empirical evidence based on the fossil record?
this strongly suggest
deliberate, intential, purposeful design: with no time and no
indication of evolution.
Only to people who start with a belief in a designer.
The fact is, the fossil record is a reliable timetable.
This is true for all phyla that first appeared during the Cambrian
with no empirical evidence of gradual change over vast spans of
time.
It requires _faith_ to believe the fantasy that transitional (intermediate) >>> life forms had to have been there.
This absolutely falsifies and undermines evolution.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> >wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >>> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >>> ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve >problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible. >BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
Ok, where is the empirical evidence based on the fossil record?
The fact is, the fossil record is a reliable timetable.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 10:52:04 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-01 14:50:46 +0000, Ron Dean said:That was the length of the Cambrian era, but the "exploson" happened in a short time(geologically speaking) near the beginning of the Cambrian.
[ … ]
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla,
You do realize, I hope, that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't something
that took place in one day, or even over seven days, à la Genesis, but
took around 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time.
The Cambrian lasted 55 million years, but some paleontologist say the "explosion" was 5-10 million years in length.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible. BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
On 1/1/23 11:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 10:52:04 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden"
<acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-01 14:50:46 +0000, Ron Dean said:That was the length of the Cambrian era, but the "exploson" happened in a
[ … ]
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla,
You do realize, I hope, that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't something
that took place in one day, or even over seven days, à la Genesis, but
took around 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time.
short time(geologically speaking) near the beginning of the Cambrian.
The Cambrian lasted 55 million years, but some paleontologist say the
"explosion" was 5-10 million years in length.
So you are arguing that the design of intelligent design occurred over a
five to ten million year period about 540 million years ago, and natural evolution has filled in the rest of the time to create most of the
diversity we see today. Interesting thesis. How many people do you
think you can get to buy it?
On 1/1/23 11:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 10:52:04 AM EST, "Athel Cornish-Bowden"
<acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-01 14:50:46 +0000, Ron Dean said:That was the length of the Cambrian era, but the "exploson" happened in a
[ … ]
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these homeobox genes are
universal, conserved from the beginning, genes that control the
formation of body parts for all animals and they burst fully formed
from the start at the "explosion" of phyla,
You do realize, I hope, that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't something
that took place in one day, or even over seven days, à la Genesis, but
took around 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time.
short time(geologically speaking) near the beginning of the Cambrian.
The Cambrian lasted 55 million years, but some paleontologist say the
"explosion" was 5-10 million years in length.
So you are arguing that the design of intelligent design occurred over a
five to ten million year period about 540 million years ago, and natural evolution has filled in the rest of the time to create most of the
diversity we see today. Interesting thesis. How many people do you
think you can get to buy it?
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:45:37 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:35:51 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
wrote:
On Dec 29, 2022 at 12:08:24 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<spec...@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 12/23/22 11:46 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Just the case of eyes perfectly funttioning during the Cambrian, without >>>> any empirical evidence of their evolution during the early stages of the >>>> Cambrian, or the preCambrian. This fact strongly suggest deliberate and >>>> intentional design.
On Dec 23, 2022 at 3:07:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:19:30 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Not true. I can point to solid scientific evidence that can be observed and
On Jul 23, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM EDT, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:04:06 -0400, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Dawkins observes design. He being an atheist, what would you expect >>>>>>>> of him? Atheism is a paradigm that takes presidence, priority and overrides
On 7/23/21 2:24 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2021-07-22 22:22:00 +0000, Ron Dean said:Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not >>>>>>>>>> designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological >>>>>>>>>> research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study
On 7/22/21 12:04 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/21/21 5:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:What you are saying, transitional fossils do not serve a purpose for
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
That's not what "transitional fossil" means. A transitional fossil is
one which shows traits intermediate between two others. No time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence is claimed.
evolution.
<> [Distractions snipped throughout]
Do you question whether whether or not I can provide evidence proving
Long times with little change for some species is fully consistent
with
the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils -- and there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
more examples of those than of stasis -- are not consistent with
non-evolutionary intelligent design.
"non-evolutionary intelligent design" is a package deal which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe explicitly rejects
in all three of his books, especially _The Edge of Evolution_ and
_Darwin Devolves_.
The only sorts of intelligent design consistent with evidence is >>>>>>>>>>>>> design arranged deliberately to *look* like evolution, or design of
evolution itself. (Fine-tuning is in the latter category.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Behe, to the best of my knowledge says nothing about intelligent >>>>>>>>>>>>> design except at the end of _Darwin's Black Box_, and I think even he
now sees that his proposal there (about all complexity being created
in the first primitive cell) was ludicrous. He asserts intelligent
design, but if he has said anything more about it, nobody has ever
presented his ideas here.
You can not pretend that biases play no part in the one's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance or
rejection of evidence. Examples: "appearant design"- Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "biologist
must constantly keep in mind that what they observed was not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed,
but rather evolved" - Crick
You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins and Crick were responding to
*other people's biases*, including yours.
Why should Dean realize anything for which you provide no evidence?
I was responding to the evidence Ron himself provided. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
that they expressed such comments?
Why not, as you don't provide the evidence that you say exists? >>>>>>>>>>>
what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution
is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as
hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous
to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences
unless the process involved is already very well understood. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
This was from: "What mad Persuits", by Dawkins pg 184
Dawkins offers his now-famous definition of life science: “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, Pg. 1
Dawkins enthuses: “Yet the living results of natural selection >>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a >>>>>>>>>> master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
.. . . when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly
even began to state the case.”
Blind watchmaker On page 21,
Is there some affliction you have that keeps you from understanding >>>>>>>>> the difference between "design" and "appearance of design"?
everything, including observation, theory, evidence and fact!
You have repeatedly declared that ID has nothing to do with God. If >>>>>>> that is so, then ID also has nothing to do with atheism. OTOH if >>>>>>> atheism has anything to do with ID or design or the appearance of >>>>>>> design, then God would necessarily be your presumptive Designer. You >>>>>>> can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
clearly points to a designer. However, there is no scientific evidence that
points to the identity of the designer. If you know of any such evidence >>>>>> please identify it and present the scientific evidence that provides your
answer.
No, you do not have such evidence. You have evidence which is
*consistent* with a designer, and because you want to believe in a
designer, you stop your thought process there. But that evidence is
equally (or more) consistent with non-designed evolution. Therefore, >>>>> your evidence points not to a designer, but to evolution or designer. >>>>> And other evidence points only to evolution, and other evidence points >>>>> away from a designer.
And even if you could rule out evolution, you still have not made much >>>>> of a case for design. Design requires that you *do* have evidence of >>>>> the designer -- perhaps not the identity down to address and Social
Security number, but at least *something* about how the designer does >>>>> the design.
I know you know that human minds perceive some patterns that don't >>>>>>> exist outside their minds. Some of these perceptions are sensory >>>>>>> illusions, and some are hard-wired intuitions, and some are learned >>>>>>> prejudices. I acknowledge some are based on objective reality. One >>>>>>> of the most important, if not the most important, functions of science >>>>>>> is to tease out and identify those perceptions which are based on or >>>>>>> correlated with objective evidence.I have numerous times. I've pointed to the appearance of arthropods >>>>>> with guts, bones, skins skeletons, mouths, and with an anus that suddenly
When you invoke "observation, theory, evidence and fact", you are >>>>>>> obliged to back up your expressed perceptions with them. Asserting >>>>>>> that appearance of design is the same as design, and presuming deceit >>>>>>> based on irrelevant personal attributes, doesn't qualify. Once again, >>>>>>> you can't have it both ways. Pick your poison.
arose in the Cambrian with no transitions fossils in the Ediacaran or early
Cambrian.
And eyes: it's claimed that eyes arose separately and independently over >>>>>> millions and millions of years. Yet, when some arthropods that first >>>>>> appeared during the Cambrian "explosion", they akready had highly
advanced, modern, functoning compound eyes.
So, if taken with an honest and unbiased mindset, one would recognize >>>>>> this, at face value, for what it actually is: eligant, deliberate and >>>>>> purposeful design.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10097
Okay, you have a bunch of stuff lying on (in this case, in) the ground. >>>>> You call it design. What, besides your say-so, shows that it is
deliberate arrangement?
You don't say what you mean by "eyes perfectly fun[ct]ioning". Even
the most sophisticated Cambrian eyes were incapable of adjusting focus
or light intensity, and almost certainly didn't perceive color
differences.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02751
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today. A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
To prove the closeness of 2 sets of genes, the eye genes of a mouse
(small eye gene)placed in the embro of a fruit fly (eyeless gene) by
scientist, Dr. Walter Gehring at Basel University in Switzerland.
The mouse eye genes _controlled_ the formation of fly eyes in the
fruit fly.This gene also found in humans (anindia) These "genes" are now
called the Pax6 gene. Experment showed that there were other such
'how genes tinman ( wizzard of Ox) gene controlled the formation of hearts, >> Dilless controlled formation of appendages. And numerous other Hox
genes many discovered by German scientist and given German
Ref:The New science of EVO DEVO - Endless Forms most beautiful,
PGs 61 - 70 By Sean B. Carroll.
This man is a leading expert and a early researcher in this new field
EVO DEVO.
Let's try this again. You seem impressed by how the "tinman" gene
regulates the formation of hearts. I can't help but notice that you
can't seem to understand how it does so, or why one can transplant
a homolog from a very distantly related organism and get a similar
activity. Perhaps not understanding it well makes it seem almost magic.
So how do these genes work? They are transcriptional regulators. At
a basic level, these genes make a protein that binds to DNA. They bind
to specific sequences of DNA. Their binding increases the chance
(usually) of that stretch of DNA being translated to RNA (and thus potentially o another protein being expressed).
The same transcription factor can turn on multiple proteins because
multiple genes can independently have the matching promotor sequence
upstream of their protein coding sequence.
In a very crude sense, it's like one switch turning on multiple lights.
But it's more complex. A gene can have multiple promotor sites
associated with it, some more active than others. They can also have
sites that inhibit translation (or specific activation) if some other regulatory protein is already bound there. And there are more subtle
ways that a whole network of multiple genes get turned off or on.
The 'make a heart' aspect isn't encoded in the tinman gene. It's
encoded in the proteins that get turned on or off when tinman is
binding upstream of their genes (and other transcription enhancers
and repressors are correctly present).
Now somebody might hear all that and initially think, "wow, that's
even more complex and seems even more designed." But they
would only think that if they were completely new to far simpler
systems of gene regulation and the near continuum in complexity
of gene regulatory networks. Because that familiarity, combined
with the apparent natural history of gene regulatory networks fits
a pattern expected of evolving systems.
I think you knew next to nothing of the above. And that makes
your drawing the inference that an intelligent designer must be behind
things a tragically under informed inference.
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies >>>> (a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design. >>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >>>> ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it >>> were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of >>> evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*; >>> we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve >> problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
On 02/01/2023 07:33, Ron Dean wrote:
Ok, where is the empirical evidence based on the fossil record?
The fact is, the fossil record is a reliable timetable.
How many living species of organism are there?
From this how many extinct species of organism can we infer to have
existed?
How many of these extinct species have we identified in fossil form?
Given these numbers how do you justify your assertion that the fossil
record is complete enough to support your other assertions?
As contrary
evidence one could cite coelacanths (with living species, but no
discovered fossils from the previous 65 million years), radiodonts (with
a 100 million gap in their fossil record) and monoplacophorans (with
living species, but no fossils from the previous 380 million years).
(Data taken from the Wikipedia article on lazarus taxa; there is also
graphic showing another 11 such taxa with fossil record gaps of tens to hundreds of millions of year.)
Using the simplifying assumptions of an unbiased fossil record and fixed rates of evolutionary morphological change one could calculate how
complete a fossil record we should observe. Can you cite an ID
researcher who has done this?
But the assumptions are not valid. The fossil record is biased towards particular taxa, habitats, times and places, so one needs more fossils
and more fossil taxa to perform the hypothesis testing that you need to support your assertions.
Furthermore, evolutionary morphological change
is observed to episodic on the micro scale, and the fossil record
indicates that is also episodic on larger scales.
You might also like to track down the dates of Ediacaran and Cambrian lagerstatten (https://fossilbonanza.com/lagerstatten-of-the-world/).
Your assertion would seem to reply that there is only a small temporal
gap between the latest Ediacaran lagerstatte and the earliest Cambrian
one; would you care to test that hypothesis?
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing >>> complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up >>> to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design. >>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion; >>>> even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive >>>> number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >>>> ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>> no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it >>> were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of >>> evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you >>> see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We >>> already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*; >>> we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >> circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
On 1/2/23 12:06 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve >> problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
Good start, and I agree with what's there. I have doubts, however, that quality can be defined well enough to apply to biological entities, or
that cost effectiveness would apply there.
Also, don't forget that engineers are not the only designers. The soap company designing a new bottle for their shampoo would probably have
most of the design done by their marketing team. Many things were
invented before the concept of engineering even existed, and tinkerers
still produce useful stuff today. So do artists, if you expand "useful"
to include desirable. And then there are non-physical objects such as
laws, business plans, and itineraries which are also designed.
It's an interesting issue, yes?
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing >>>>> complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up >>>>> to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design. >>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion; >>>>>> even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive >>>>>> number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >>>>>> ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>> no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it >>>>> were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of >>>>> evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you >>>>> see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We >>>>> already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*; >>>>> we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >>>> circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at >> time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome. Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks, with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly andI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing >>>>> complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up >>>>> to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion; >>>>>> even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive >>>>>> number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>> no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it >>>>> were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of >>>>> evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you >>>>> see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We >>>>> already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires, glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that express body parts in animal phyla.
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of. >Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing >>>> complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up >>>> to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design. >>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion; >>>>> even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive >>>>> number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla >>>>> ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>> no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it >>>> were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of >>>> evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you >>>> see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We >>>> already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*; >>>> we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >>> circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox >genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at >time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near >as capable as functioning in the distant future.
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett" ><j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather >turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires, >glass etc
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >>>>> circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly andI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing >>>>>> complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up >>>>>> to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion; >>>>>>> even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive >>>>>>> number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it >>>>>> were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of >>>>>> evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you >>>>>> see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We >>>>>> already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*; >>>>>> we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at >>> time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the >> homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated >> binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually >> understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >express body parts in animal phyla.
On Jan 2, 2023 at 7:10:24 AM EST, "Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> >wrote:
On 02/01/2023 07:33, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, You are right. I based my assumptions and opinions upon what has been >discovered primarly by paleontologist and what is generally believed.
Ok, where is the empirical evidence based on the fossil record?
The fact is, the fossil record is a reliable timetable.
How many living species of organism are there?
From this how many extinct species of organism can we infer to have
existed?
How many of these extinct species have we identified in fossil form?
Given these numbers how do you justify your assertion that the fossil
record is complete enough to support your other assertions?
As contraryThese species are referred to as "living fossils" which are virtually >unchanged over vast spans of time, such as millions of hundreds of millions of >years. This isi an example of what is observed and what is
evidence one could cite coelacanths (with living species, but no
discovered fossils from the previous 65 million years), radiodonts (with
a 100 million gap in their fossil record) and monoplacophorans (with
living species, but no fossils from the previous 380 million years).
(Data taken from the Wikipedia article on lazarus taxa; there is also
graphic showing another 11 such taxa with fossil record gaps of tens to
hundreds of millions of year.)
unobserved, such as the finely graduates fossils that Darwin expressed hope >for, that future discoveries would verify his theory. But there are
vastly more species currently known than in Darwins time: but these
species, by far and large, have the same problem that Darwin had. And
as I see it, rather than resolve this problem it magnified Darwin's problem.
Using the simplifying assumptions of an unbiased fossil record and fixedI knew about evolution, but I expect it was fact and I didn't question it. >The truth is, in my younger days, my interest was sports, and girls.
rates of evolutionary morphological change one could calculate how
complete a fossil record we should observe. Can you cite an ID
researcher who has done this?
However, I've always loved reading, So, a couple decades ago, I was
in a used book store and I saw a book entitled "Evolution a theory in >Crisis" by Michael Denton. I bought the book; thinking it would be fun >pointing out false statements, missrepresentations, religioous material
and Bible reference. But it was not what I thought it was. But I read
the book and it got me thinking. I did my own research and came to
the conclusions I hold today.
But the assumptions are not valid. The fossil record is biased towardsMy first job after graduation, I was placed under a senior engineer
particular taxa, habitats, times and places, so one needs more fossils
and more fossil taxa to perform the hypothesis testing that you need to
support your assertions.
In designing electrical/electronic circuits. I specified top quality even >military standard components. After a few months he came to me
with a chart. It showed horizontal lines representing effectiveness a
and parallel line representing cost. The line went straight up part way
then began curving toward increasing cost and less effectiveness.
until it rose near and nearer to the top line, there it became almost >parellel. I suspect after 150+ years of fossil digging, the new and
different species have about reached the parallel line.
Furthermore, evolutionary morphological changeEpisodic? Representing stasis? If so, this brings Gould and Eldredge
is observed to episodic on the micro scale, and the fossil record
indicates that is also episodic on larger scales.
into the picture.
I went to this cite, this is something interesting, however, it would take >months to go through all of this material. So, I cannot express an opinion
You might also like to track down the dates of Ediacaran and Cambrian
lagerstatten (https://fossilbonanza.com/lagerstatten-of-the-world/).
Your assertion would seem to reply that there is only a small temporal
gap between the latest Ediacaran lagerstatte and the earliest Cambrian
one; would you care to test that hypothesis?
on this at this time.
And they exist in plants, and they exist in unicellular organisms without "body parts" in the sense I expect that you mean. This tears down your "observation" that they arose suddenly to produce the Cambrian explosion.
On Jan 2, 2023 at 12:16:43 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 12:06 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As you requested: you wanted design without reference to biological
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >>> circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
Good start, and I agree with what's there. I have doubts, however, that
quality can be defined well enough to apply to biological entities, or
that cost effectiveness would apply there.
entities.
Also, don't forget that engineers are not the only designers. The soapYes, I admit it's possible that I'm a bit biased because of my background.
company designing a new bottle for their shampoo would probably have
most of the design done by their marketing team. Many things were
invented before the concept of engineering even existed, and tinkerers
still produce useful stuff today. So do artists, if you expand "useful"
to include desirable. And then there are non-physical objects such as
laws, business plans, and itineraries which are also designed.
It's an interesting issue, yes?
I see what appears to have earmarks of design. IE: purpose, eligance and effective functioning in the future, such as homeobox genes.
It's difficult to recognize how random mutations and natural selection could accomplish such integrate design.
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same "end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil, iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed. How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
Some animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing
this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests >>>>>>>>> for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?I have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>> today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing >>>>>>> complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>>>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up >>>>>>> to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design.
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion; >>>>>>>> even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive >>>>>>>> number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it >>>>>>> were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of >>>>>>> evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you >>>>>>> see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We >>>>>>> already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>>>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>>>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >>>> connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors >>> use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the >>> homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap >>> out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated >>> binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that >>> function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing >>> you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually >>> understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
On 1/2/23 9:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 12:16:43 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 12:06 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As you requested: you wanted design without reference to biological
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >>>> circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
Good start, and I agree with what's there. I have doubts, however, that >>> quality can be defined well enough to apply to biological entities, or
that cost effectiveness would apply there.
entities.
Yes, thank you. Now consider the implications.
Also, don't forget that engineers are not the only designers. The soapYes, I admit it's possible that I'm a bit biased because of my background. >> I see what appears to have earmarks of design. IE: purpose, eligance and >> effective functioning in the future, such as homeobox genes.
company designing a new bottle for their shampoo would probably have
most of the design done by their marketing team. Many things were
invented before the concept of engineering even existed, and tinkerers
still produce useful stuff today. So do artists, if you expand "useful" >>> to include desirable. And then there are non-physical objects such as
laws, business plans, and itineraries which are also designed.
It's an interesting issue, yes?
We can throw out purpose. *We* see purpose, but we are not the
designers. If you want to consider purpose, you need to interview the designer. Were coal and oil deposits created with the purpose of being useful as an energy source and global climate disrupter, or were they
just happenstance that we, for our own purposes, used that way? Did the designer of mosquitoes really have in mind the purpose of spreading
malaria and yellow fever?
Elegance has a large subjective component, too, but there is much in
life which is far from elegant. The need to keep testicles hanging vulnerable in order to keep them cool, for example, or the large heads
of infants that make childbirth difficult (and hyenas have it even worse).
As for effective functioning, note that that is equally (if not moreso)
an earmark of evolution. You can't use it to distinguish design from evolution.
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not right:It's difficult to recognize how random mutations and natural selection could >> accomplish such integrate design.
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple >> co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards
acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful >> mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same >> "end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil, >> iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed. >> How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously.
There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantage
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that
the job is not done yet.
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations to
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer
to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
Some animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey >> bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing
this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons
of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could
not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>>>>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up >>>>>>>> to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward lookingJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion; >>>>>>>>> even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive >>>>>>>>> number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We >>>>>>>> already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>>>>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>>>>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >>>>> connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors >>>> use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts >>> but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the >>>> homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap >>>> out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that >>>> function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing >>>> you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not right:
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards
acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful >>> mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same >>> "end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases >>> in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed. >>> How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of >>> faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously.
There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
rather new information is needed.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that
the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories hypothesis and educated guesswork.
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations toI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer
to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow
scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious genetic problems.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing
this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons
of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could
not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins. So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence. Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 9:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I don't have all the answers, but since we know that information is lost
On Jan 2, 2023 at 12:16:43 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 12:06 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As you requested: you wanted design without reference to biological
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic >>>>> circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us >>>>>> what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
Good start, and I agree with what's there. I have doubts, however, that >>>> quality can be defined well enough to apply to biological entities, or >>>> that cost effectiveness would apply there.
entities.
Yes, thank you. Now consider the implications.
Also, don't forget that engineers are not the only designers. The soap >>>> company designing a new bottle for their shampoo would probably haveYes, I admit it's possible that I'm a bit biased because of my background. >>> I see what appears to have earmarks of design. IE: purpose, eligance and >>> effective functioning in the future, such as homeobox genes.
most of the design done by their marketing team. Many things were
invented before the concept of engineering even existed, and tinkerers >>>> still produce useful stuff today. So do artists, if you expand "useful" >>>> to include desirable. And then there are non-physical objects such as >>>> laws, business plans, and itineraries which are also designed.
It's an interesting issue, yes?
We can throw out purpose. *We* see purpose, but we are not the
designers. If you want to consider purpose, you need to interview the
designer. Were coal and oil deposits created with the purpose of being
useful as an energy source and global climate disrupter, or were they
just happenstance that we, for our own purposes, used that way? Did the
designer of mosquitoes really have in mind the purpose of spreading
malaria and yellow fever?
in the DNA, perhaps the mosquito lost it's origional purpose.
Elegance has a large subjective component, too, but there is much inTrue, I think comes down to ones paradigm.
life which is far from elegant. The need to keep testicles hanging
vulnerable in order to keep them cool, for example, or the large heads
of infants that make childbirth difficult (and hyenas have it even worse). >>
As for effective functioning, note that that is equally (if not moreso)
an earmark of evolution. You can't use it to distinguish design from
evolution.
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not right:
It's difficult to recognize how random mutations and natural selection could
accomplish such integrate design.
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards
acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful >>> mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same >>> "end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases >>> in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed. >>> How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of >>> faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously.
There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
rather new information is needed.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that
the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories hypothesis and educated guesswork.
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations toI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer
to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow
scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious genetic problems.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing
this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons
of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could
not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins. So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the precambrian.
d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence. Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >> ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>>>>>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward lookingJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>>>>>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>>>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >>>>>> connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors >>>>> use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts >>>> but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap >>>>> out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that >>>>> function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing >>>>> you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point
many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating
your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward lookingJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >>>> connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors >>> use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts >> but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing >>> you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative >> mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards >>>> acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful >>>> mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same >>>> "end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases >>>> in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of >>>> faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously. >>> There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the
second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative
mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New
information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that >>> the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories >> hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion
years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we
have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know
the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it
simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations toI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer >>> to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow
scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection >> should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and >> most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations >> are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious >> genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing
this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons >>> of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could >>> not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins. >> So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were >> present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the
precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence.
Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes
to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people
that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences
between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times
faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them
elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Design is done in
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved.
None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not
look designed.
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 9:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I don't have all the answers, but since we know that information is lost
On Jan 2, 2023 at 12:16:43 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 12:06 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As you requested: you wanted design without reference to biological
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
Good start, and I agree with what's there. I have doubts, however, that >>>>> quality can be defined well enough to apply to biological entities, or >>>>> that cost effectiveness would apply there.
entities.
Yes, thank you. Now consider the implications.
Also, don't forget that engineers are not the only designers. The soap >>>>> company designing a new bottle for their shampoo would probably have >>>>> most of the design done by their marketing team. Many things wereYes, I admit it's possible that I'm a bit biased because of my background. >>>> I see what appears to have earmarks of design. IE: purpose, eligance and
invented before the concept of engineering even existed, and tinkerers >>>>> still produce useful stuff today. So do artists, if you expand "useful" >>>>> to include desirable. And then there are non-physical objects such as >>>>> laws, business plans, and itineraries which are also designed.
It's an interesting issue, yes?
effective functioning in the future, such as homeobox genes.
We can throw out purpose. *We* see purpose, but we are not the
designers. If you want to consider purpose, you need to interview the
designer. Were coal and oil deposits created with the purpose of being
useful as an energy source and global climate disrupter, or were they
just happenstance that we, for our own purposes, used that way? Did the >>> designer of mosquitoes really have in mind the purpose of spreading
malaria and yellow fever?
in the DNA, perhaps the mosquito lost it's origional purpose.
By any reasonable definition, don't the very complex and specific
adaptions of female mosquitoes for bloodsucking have to involve a gain
of information? Transmission of disease is merely a consequence of that habit. Your argument doesn't work.
Elegance has a large subjective component, too, but there is much inTrue, I think comes down to ones paradigm.
life which is far from elegant. The need to keep testicles hanging
vulnerable in order to keep them cool, for example, or the large heads
of infants that make childbirth difficult (and hyenas have it even worse). >>>
As for effective functioning, note that that is equally (if not moreso)
an earmark of evolution. You can't use it to distinguish design from
evolution.
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative >> mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not
It's difficult to recognize how random mutations and natural selection could
accomplish such integrate design.
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards >>>> acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful >>>> mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same >>>> "end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases >>>> in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of >>>> faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously. >>> There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
right:
rather new information is needed.
What does "co-corporative" mean? Etymologically, it would mean "in the
same body". Aren't mutations new information?
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that >>> the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories >> hypothesis and educated guesswork.
Your facts are wrong here. Compound eyes are known from the earliest
fossil trilobites, but those appear more than 20 million years after the start of the Cambrian. They happen to preserved because they were made
of calcite. The eyes of other arthropods were not preserved in
sufficient detail to determine whether they were compound, though we
presume they were, and these too are only found more than 20 million
years after the Cambrian began. The smell shelly fauna and abundant ichnofossils precede all this. The abrupt appearance you see is a
taphonomic artifact.
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations toI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer >>> to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow
scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection >> should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and >> most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations >> are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious >> genetic problems.
Most mutations by far are neutral or nearly so. Deleterious mutations
are eliminated by selection while beneficial ones are spread. So the
relative frequency of each sort of mutation is not very relevant.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing
this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons >>> of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could >>> not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins. >> So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were >> present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the
precambrian.
Again, you misunderstand the difference between the start of the
Cambrian and the age of the earliest trilobites, which again is more
than 20 million years off.
d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence.
Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
Yes, there is evidence, again, the small shellies and the ichnofossils,
plus a few body fossils such as Kimberella, Cloudina, and Namacalathus.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:...............................................
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards >>>> acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously. >>> There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not >> right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative
mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of >>> it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that >>> the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories
hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion
years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it
simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations to >>> further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is >>> no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer >>> to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow >>> scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the >>> only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as >>> the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.I don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems >> that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and
most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations
are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons >>> of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could >>> not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins.
So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were
present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the >> precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in >> that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence. >> Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes
to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people
that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences
between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them
elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Please provide examples of this.
Design is done in
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved.
None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not
look designed.
Where would one look for a drawing board or models?
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
It would seem from the very beginning, even beforeChemical and solar energy.
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source?
And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >conclusions.
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >>> ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward lookingJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>>>>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >>>>>>> connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors >>>>>> use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts >>>>> but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing >>>>>> you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point
many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating
your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:03:55 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, I didn't think the Cambrian "explosion" occurred the first years of the Cambrian
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 9:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I don't have all the answers, but since we know that information is lost >>> in the DNA, perhaps the mosquito lost it's origional purpose.
On Jan 2, 2023 at 12:16:43 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/2/23 12:06 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As you requested: you wanted design without reference to biological
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
Good start, and I agree with what's there. I have doubts, however, that >>>>>> quality can be defined well enough to apply to biological entities, or >>>>>> that cost effectiveness would apply there.
entities.
Yes, thank you. Now consider the implications.
Also, don't forget that engineers are not the only designers. The soap >>>>>> company designing a new bottle for their shampoo would probably have >>>>>> most of the design done by their marketing team. Many things were >>>>>> invented before the concept of engineering even existed, and tinkerers >>>>>> still produce useful stuff today. So do artists, if you expand "useful" >>>>>> to include desirable. And then there are non-physical objects such as >>>>>> laws, business plans, and itineraries which are also designed.Yes, I admit it's possible that I'm a bit biased because of my background.
It's an interesting issue, yes?
I see what appears to have earmarks of design. IE: purpose, eligance and
effective functioning in the future, such as homeobox genes.
We can throw out purpose. *We* see purpose, but we are not the
designers. If you want to consider purpose, you need to interview the >>>> designer. Were coal and oil deposits created with the purpose of being >>>> useful as an energy source and global climate disrupter, or were they
just happenstance that we, for our own purposes, used that way? Did the >>>> designer of mosquitoes really have in mind the purpose of spreading
malaria and yellow fever?
By any reasonable definition, don't the very complex and specific
adaptions of female mosquitoes for bloodsucking have to involve a gain
of information? Transmission of disease is merely a consequence of that
habit. Your argument doesn't work.
Elegance has a large subjective component, too, but there is much inTrue, I think comes down to ones paradigm.
life which is far from elegant. The need to keep testicles hanging
vulnerable in order to keep them cool, for example, or the large heads >>>> of infants that make childbirth difficult (and hyenas have it even worse). >>>>
As for effective functioning, note that that is equally (if not moreso) >>>> an earmark of evolution. You can't use it to distinguish design from
evolution.
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
It's difficult to recognize how random mutations and natural selection could
accomplish such integrate design.
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards >>>>> acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases >>>>> in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of >>>>> faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously. >>>> There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of >>>> cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not >>> right:
rather new information is needed.
What does "co-corporative" mean? Etymologically, it would mean "in the
same body". Aren't mutations new information?
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of >>>> it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that >>>> the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories >>> hypothesis and educated guesswork.
Your facts are wrong here. Compound eyes are known from the earliest
fossil trilobites, but those appear more than 20 million years after the
start of the Cambrian. They happen to preserved because they were made
of calcite. The eyes of other arthropods were not preserved in
sufficient detail to determine whether they were compound, though we
presume they were, and these too are only found more than 20 million
years after the Cambrian began. The smell shelly fauna and abundant
ichnofossils precede all this. The abrupt appearance you see is a
taphonomic artifact.
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations toI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems >>> that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is >>>> no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer >>>> to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow >>>> scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the >>>> only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as >>>> the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and >>> most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations >>> are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Most mutations by far are neutral or nearly so. Deleterious mutations
are eliminated by selection while beneficial ones are spread. So the
relative frequency of each sort of mutation is not very relevant.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons >>>> of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could >>>> not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins. >>> So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were >>> present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the >>> precambrian.
Again, you misunderstand the difference between the start of the
Cambrian and the age of the earliest trilobites, which again is more
than 20 million years off.
which is believed to have lasted 55-60 million years. The first twenty(20) million years
is the beginning of the Cambrian. Also Britanicca states that this explosion lasted
about 11 million years.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cambrian-explosion
We are discussing evolutionary predicessors. Which of these forms is considered ancestor to Cambrian critters, which is said to be the ancestors of modern phyla?d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence. >>> Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
Yes, there is evidence, again, the small shellies and the ichnofossils,
plus a few body fossils such as Kimberella, Cloudina, and Namacalathus.
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >> ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what >>>>>>>>> designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward lookingJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want >>>>>>>>> to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention >>>>>>>>> biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>>>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >>>>>> connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors >>>>> use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts >>>> but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap >>>>> out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that >>>>> function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing >>>>> you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major, can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems patently absurd.
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the globe - does that mean they are designed?
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Please provide examples of this.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards >>>>> acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases >>>>> in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of >>>>> faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously. >>>> There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of >>>> cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not >>> right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It
occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the
second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative
mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and
selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New
information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be
endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of >>>> it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that >>>> the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories >>> hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion
years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we
have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know
the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it
simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a
miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations toI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems >>> that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is >>>> no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer >>>> to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow >>>> scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the >>>> only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as >>>> the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and >>> most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations >>> are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the
flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons >>>> of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could >>>> not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins. >>> So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were >>> present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the >>> precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence. >>> Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes
to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever
reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people
that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences
between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times
faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them
elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Design is done inWhere would one look for a drawing board or models?
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved.
None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not
look designed.
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
It would seem from the very beginning, even before
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source? And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from > ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same: the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >>>> ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>>>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>>>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point
many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating
your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
conclusions.
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should
be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to
be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you
think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince >you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point
many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating
your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
conclusions.
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should
be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to
be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you
think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me. >I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my >paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely likely to damage the code.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >>> ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics >>>>>>>>> and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward lookingJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
and elegant engineering design and for these
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus, >>>>>>>>>> the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark >>>>>>>> of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or >>>>>>> connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors >>>>>> use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts >>>>> but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing >>>>>> you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain >> why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely >> to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short >> period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems
patently absurd.
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the >> globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
no change) from their first appearance"
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared in the strata without any known history.
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you
describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection. >>
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same: the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a
similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the >> two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference >> from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >>>> ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>>>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>>>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short >>> period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems
patently absurd.
hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such
random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely >> likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a >different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as
the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design >mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic >criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives.
It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number
of cases, and beats chance.
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly >conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should
be the case - and here we have at least one clear counter-example. And >things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern >across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and
b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and >knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now
needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads
to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the >>> globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance"
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are >rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to >environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so
than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >gave for "being designed"
Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom >> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the >> following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, >abrupt appearance and then stability?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from
that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything >points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - >flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the
time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities. >Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another
50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies
of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of >people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for
a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor,
but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small >people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain
that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were >Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots
of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of >documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from
the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of
the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what >language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what >ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns,
in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any >physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they
were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period >survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces
of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples >heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much >higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that
the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets >destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck
is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment
to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify >traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to >reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again
we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better >analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries >directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian >explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of >earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are >asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there
is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the >phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it. >There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest >surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from
as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have
so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially
the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something >remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical >factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two >elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again >unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain >controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to >drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan >evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again, >reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and >Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with >other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely
zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level
of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements.
One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build
on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for >innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place,
it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then >"break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water.
With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body
plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or
even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for
it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from > >> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the >> following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
And the
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from > >>> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as the
origin of life itself.
And the
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Here again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On 1/4/23 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Please provide examples of this.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards >>>>>> acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously. >>>>> There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of >>>>> cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not >>>> right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It >>> occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the
second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative
mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and
selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New
information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to
another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be >>>>> endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of >>>>> it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that >>>>> the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian
in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is >>>> real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories >>>> hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion
years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we
have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know >>> the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it
simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a
miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations to >>>>> further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is >>>>> no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer >>>>> to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow >>>>> scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the >>>>> only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as >>>>> the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.I don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems >>>> that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and
most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations
are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the
flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the
universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no
evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons >>>>> of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could >>>>> not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative
genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins.
So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were
present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the >>>> precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in >>>> that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence. >>>> Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory
and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes
to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever >>> reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people
that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences
between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times
faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them
elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Seat belts were invented for gliders, but are now used also in
automobiles, airplanes, some roller coasters, and probably elsewhere.
Zippers are used on pants, jackets, boots, suitcases, tents, upholstery, sleeping bags, and umbrella cases, to name just the few uses that come immediately to mind.
Do I even need to mention transistors and screws?
Design is done inWhere would one look for a drawing board or models?
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved.
None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not
look designed.
Personal archives. Junk yards. Neglected corporate storage facilities.
Dumpsters.
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
I don't understand the relevance. Models are not simply reproductions.
It would seem from the very beginning, even before
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source? And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
That drive started right after the Big Bang (if not sooner). The
formation of atoms, molecules, stars, and planets all show a drive
pushing to greater complexity. Some have suggested it is a law of thermodynamics. As for its source, my knowledge of statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics is not sufficient to provide an answer.
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point
many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating
your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
conclusions.
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should
be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to
be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you
think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the
evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me. >> I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my >> paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What
is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and
the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design
or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your explanation.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that they were designed.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point
many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating
your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
conclusions.
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should
be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to
be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you
think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason.
This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should
be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to
be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you
think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the
evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My..
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my >>> paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What
is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and
the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design
or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided
evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided
evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that
contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your
explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:54:02 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Thermodynamics without information has the exact opposite effect.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Please provide examples of this.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards >>>>>>> acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to
believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously. >>>>>> There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of >>>>>> cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not >>>>> right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It >>>> occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the
second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative
mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and >>>> selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New
information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to >>>>>> another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be >>>>>> endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of >>>>>> it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that >>>>>> the job is not done yet.
eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian >>>>> in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is >>>>> real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories
hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion
years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we >>>> have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know >>>> the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it
simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a >>>> miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations to >>>>>> further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is >>>>>> no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer >>>>>> to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow >>>>>> scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the >>>>>> only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as >>>>>> the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.I don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems >>>>> that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and
most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations
are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the
flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there isSome animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the >>>>>>> universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>>>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no >>>>>> evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons >>>>>> of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could >>>>>> not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative >>>>>> genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
"the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins.
So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were
present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the >>>>> precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in >>>>> that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence. >>>>> Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory >>>>> and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes >>>> to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever >>>> reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people
that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences
between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times
faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them
elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Seat belts were invented for gliders, but are now used also in
automobiles, airplanes, some roller coasters, and probably elsewhere.
Zippers are used on pants, jackets, boots, suitcases, tents, upholstery,
sleeping bags, and umbrella cases, to name just the few uses that come
immediately to mind.
Do I even need to mention transistors and screws?
Design is done inWhere would one look for a drawing board or models?
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved.
None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not
look designed.
Personal archives. Junk yards. Neglected corporate storage facilities.
Dumpsters.
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
I don't understand the relevance. Models are not simply reproductions.
It would seem from the very beginning, even before
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source? And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
That drive started right after the Big Bang (if not sooner). The
formation of atoms, molecules, stars, and planets all show a drive
pushing to greater complexity. Some have suggested it is a law of
thermodynamics. As for its source, my knowledge of statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics is not sufficient to provide an answer.
Actually information with a driving force creates increasing order and complexity. Random unguided thermo tends towards disorder and
chaos.
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as >> the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc. The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things. When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes. But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On 1/6/23 12:43 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as >> the
origin of life itself.
I expect a lot of auto hobbyists and archaeologists would disagree with you.
And the
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>> they were designed.
Here again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
Again, you are claiming that your opinion is the sole criterion for what
is important, as well as what matters for considering whether something
looks designed or not.
One way of looking at science is that it does not allow individuals to
play god. If you want to know how the universe works, you have to
consult the universe itself, not just your own feelings. You have to
ask God, not tell him.
You are going the other way. I won't say you are playing god, but you
are acting as though you outrank him.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
You did not answer this. Perhaps that is because the answer is "nothing."
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:I think the burden is on you. I know your type, the one who hides behind their weaponized ignorance. Any effort to interact meets with frustrating futility. Given how so many have tried to educate you on these matters (homeobox motif versus Hox gene clusters across phyla/ Cambrian “explosion”
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your
wrote:
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point
many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating
your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
conclusions.
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should
be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to
be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you
think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the
evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
and what it means) it’s time for you to produce something worthwhile in response. Handwaving on your part just doesn’t cut it.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason.
The use of “paradigm” is in itself a red flag. There is a difference between your subjective whims about evolution and the objective facts of
the matter and actual work geneticists, molecular biologists, developmental biologists, and paleontologists have done. You don’t even manage to scratch the surface in your ineffective ruminations about “design”. Paley and Owen
spin in their graves.
This also applies to me.You need to try much harder to match the futile effort others have put into trying to edify you on these matters.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my >> paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are >>>> ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to >>>>>>>>>>>> mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for >>>>>>>>>>> almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human >>>>>>>>> engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the >>>>>>>>> very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those >>>>>>>>> systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would >>>>>>>>> go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant, >>>>>>>> controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein >>>>>>> folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect.
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one >>>>>>> subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous >>>>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short >>> period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems
patently absurd.
hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such
random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely >> likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as
the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives.
It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number
of cases, and beats chance.
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should
be the case.
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. And
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern
across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and
b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as
e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now
needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads
to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally
give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the >>> globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance"
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are
rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so
than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you
gave for "being designed"
Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom >> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the >> following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, abrupt appearance and then stability?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from
that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything
points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the
time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities.
Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another
50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies
of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for
a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor,
but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small
people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain
that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots
of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from
the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of
the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns,
in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they
were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even
less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces
of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much
higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that
the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck
is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment
to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again
we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are
asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there
is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the
phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it.
There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from
as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have
so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially
the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now,
in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to
drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker,
A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again, reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with
other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of
that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely
zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level
of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements.
One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build
on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place,
it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then
"break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water.
With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body
plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or
even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for
it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:50:50 PM EST, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:I think the burden is on you. I know your type, the one who hides behind
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris
famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should
be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to
be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you
think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the
evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
their weaponized ignorance. Any effort to interact meets with frustrating
futility. Given how so many have tried to educate you on these matters
(homeobox motif versus Hox gene clusters across phyla/ Cambrian “explosion”
and what it means) it’s time for you to produce something worthwhile in
response. Handwaving on your part just doesn’t cut it.
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively undermines
evolution. Yet, I will acknowledge that, at the same time does, absence
of intermediates does not prove design.
The problem is all I seen, by others is attempted explanations, and excuses in regards to the absence of intermediate fossils between the Cambrian animals and Edicaran linages to common ancestoral forms; and this is aOnce again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My..
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason.
The use of “paradigm” is in itself a red flag. There is a difference
between your subjective whims about evolution and the objective facts of
the matter and actual work geneticists, molecular biologists, developmental >> biologists, and paleontologists have done. You don’t even manage to scratch
the surface in your ineffective ruminations about “design”. Paley and Owen
spin in their graves.
This also applies to me.You need to try much harder to match the futile effort others have put into >> trying to edify you on these matters.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my >>> paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
sword in the heart of evolution.
On 1/6/23 1:48 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:54:02 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Thermodynamics without information has the exact opposite effect.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Please provide examples of this.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards
acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to >>>>>>>> believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously.
There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not
right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It >>>>> occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the >>>>> second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative
mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and >>>>> selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New
information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantageBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound >>>>>> eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian >>>>>> in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is >>>>>> real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories
over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to >>>>>>> another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be >>>>>>> endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None of >>>>>>> it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that
the job is not done yet.
hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion >>>>> years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we >>>>> have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know >>>>> the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it >>>>> simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a >>>>> miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations to >>>>>>> further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is >>>>>>> no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designerI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems
to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow >>>>>>> scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the >>>>>>> only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as >>>>>>> the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and
most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations
are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the >>>>> flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there is >>>>>> "the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins.Some animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the >>>>>>>> universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>>>>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no >>>>>>> evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons
of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could
not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative >>>>>>> genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were
present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the >>>>>> precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in >>>>>> that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence.
Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory >>>>>> and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes >>>>> to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever >>>>> reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people >>>>> that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences
between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times >>>>> faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them
elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Seat belts were invented for gliders, but are now used also in
automobiles, airplanes, some roller coasters, and probably elsewhere.
Zippers are used on pants, jackets, boots, suitcases, tents, upholstery, >>> sleeping bags, and umbrella cases, to name just the few uses that come
immediately to mind.
Do I even need to mention transistors and screws?
Design is done inWhere would one look for a drawing board or models?
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved. >>>>> None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not >>>>> look designed.
Personal archives. Junk yards. Neglected corporate storage facilities. >>> Dumpsters.
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
I don't understand the relevance. Models are not simply reproductions.
It would seem from the very beginning, even before
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source? And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
That drive started right after the Big Bang (if not sooner). The
formation of atoms, molecules, stars, and planets all show a drive
pushing to greater complexity. Some have suggested it is a law of
thermodynamics. As for its source, my knowledge of statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics is not sufficient to provide an answer.
Actually information with a driving force creates increasing order and
complexity. Random unguided thermo tends towards disorder and
chaos.
That is not true, or at least, it does not take more than a trivial
amount of information to produce order. What matters is not
information, but a flow of energy.
Such flows of energy produce a lot
of entropy, but patterns of increasing order seem always to appear in
the midst. The classic example is a pan of water on a burner. This
does not produce chaos (or at least, not right away); rather, a regular pattern of convection cells appears. It's almost like Entropy knows
what is necessary to create more of it, and then it does so, even if
that requires creating pockets of order in the process. Life, for all
the order contained within it, is an entropy-increasing device.
So are stars. The creation of a star does not require much information,
just a local increase in density of a cloud. From that, increasing
order and complexity arise spontaneously. But notwithstanding all that order, the net result is much faster increases in entropy.
(Also, please note that "entropy", "disorder", and "chaos" have distinctEntropy is a factor of the second law of thermodynamics. The
and different meanings. For sake of communication, please respect those meanings.)
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the
evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My..
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What
is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and
the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design
or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided
evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided
evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that
contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your
explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor.
There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute. As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained
your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to
pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my
explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the
evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please
explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My..
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What
is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and
the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design
or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided
evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided
evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that
contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your
explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor.
There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
On 1/6/23 12:43 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as >> the
origin of life itself.
I expect a lot of auto hobbyists and archaeologists would disagree with you.
And the
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>> they were designed.
Here again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
Again, you are claiming that your opinion is the sole criterion for what
is important, as well as what matters for considering whether something
looks designed or not.
One way of looking at science is that it does not allow individuals to
play god. If you want to know how the universe works, you have to
consult the universe itself, not just your own feelings. You have to
ask God, not tell him.
You are going the other way. I won't say you are playing god, but you
are acting as though you outrank him.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
You did not answer this. Perhaps that is because the answer is "nothing."
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What
is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and
the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design
or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided
evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided
evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your
explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For
someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
On Jan 7, 2023 at 9:37:30 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:There seems to be some controversy here, I read from 13 million years
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
5 to 19 million years. So, who do I trust. I tene to trust the encyclopedia britannica more that names I don't know. No reflection meant on you.
Ok how can one know that the Edicaran or the early Cambrian eras had transitional fossils? There is no evidence. except for evolution to be a reaityl there had to have been. In the final analysis history is written in the rocks.As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For
someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not >address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short >>>> period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find
similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as
the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to.
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnosticNo, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives.
It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number
of cases, and beats chance.
than computer history.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution.
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highlyNot just highly concerned [conserved?], but also fully functional from the very first
conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should
be the case.
evidence of their existence.
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed. Besides mountains
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern
across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and
b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as
e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and
knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now
needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads
to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should
expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally
give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the >>>> globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance"
are know to change.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They areNo change was only one part.
rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to
environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so
than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you
gave for "being designed"
The better of two options.With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom >>> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What
aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words,
abrupt appearance and then stability?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from
that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you
would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything
points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back -
flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the
time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the
flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities.
Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another
50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies
of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of
people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for
a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor,
but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small
people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain
that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were
Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots
of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of
documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have
considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from
the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of
the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what
language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what
ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns,
in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any
physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they
were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even
less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces
of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples
heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you
leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much
higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things
become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that
the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets
destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck
is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment
to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify
traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to
reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again
we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better
analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were
invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian
explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of
earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>
asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there
is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the
phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it.
There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest
surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere
centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from
as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have
so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially
the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >> in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again
unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain
controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to
drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker,
A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan
evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably
controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >> what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with
other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of
that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely
zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new
observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level
of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements.
One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build
on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for
innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place,
it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less
restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then
"break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water.
With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body
plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or
even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for
it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively undermines
evolution.
Yet, I will acknowledge that, at the same time does, absence
of intermediates does not prove design.
The problem is all I seen, by others is attempted explanations, and excuses in regards to the absence of intermediate fossils between the Cambrian animals and Edicaran linages to common ancestoral forms; and this is a
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My..
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better
than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason.
The use of “paradigm” is in itself a red flag. There is a difference
between your subjective whims about evolution and the objective facts of
the matter and actual work geneticists, molecular biologists, developmental >> biologists, and paleontologists have done. You don’t even manage to scratch
the surface in your ineffective ruminations about “design”. Paley and Owen
spin in their graves.
This also applies to me.You need to try much harder to match the futile effort others have put into >> trying to edify you on these matters.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my >>> paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
sword in the heart of evolution.
Ok how can one know that the Edicaran or the early Cambrian eras had >transitional fossils? There is no evidence. except for evolution to be a >reaityl there had to have been. In the final analysis history is written in >the rocks.As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For
someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com" ><brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >intelligence
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>>
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of >> course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that >> there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like >> the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc. >> The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we >> have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a >> paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was >> the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like >> that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they >> have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of >> years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are >> not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion >> would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them >> as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for >> identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things. >> When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where >> your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and
complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely >barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that >spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no >other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means. >I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no >intelligence ever on the planet..
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no intelligence ever on the planet..
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to >>> do with design?
On Jan 6, 2023 at 8:30:46 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>But the fact remains compound animals appeared comparatively abruptly
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's >>>>>>>> as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What
is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and
the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design
or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided
evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided
evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your
explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute. As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For
someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
in the strata of the Cambrian without being preceded by intermediates
back to a common ancestor. Maybe this does not prove design, but
it effectively discounts evolution, except through_faith_ that there must >been intermediates previously.
preceding
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That
does not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you
think AIDS was designed).
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
product seems abrupt.
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS was designed).
As a retrovirus (lentivirus) HIV itself wasn’t all that sudden was it? On human timescales retrovirus evolution seems quantum, but it was brewing in some non-human primate before it made the leap into people, which was probably a mundane event in itself.
As a disease state was AIDS all that sudden? It was brewing in people for a few decades or so before it rose to prominence as a novel disease in gay populations in US cities. It seemed sudden in the popular (US) imagination. Before the scare of the early 80s and rise to prominence as it affected celebrities (eg- Rock Hudson), it had already been a thing for a while. It’s kinda like fossils making a sudden appearance due to facilitative taphonomy. The groups they indicate were already a thing for a while.
Gay activists insinuated AIDS was a lab creation. I mean why not with the nefarious deeds seen done by the government with Tuskegee/Guatemala research, MKULTRA, and the Phoenix Program. The active measures folks at
the KGB planted a story in an Indian KGB front newspaper that HIV was created at Fort Detrick. The planted fiction took a while to gain traction, but the notion the government would create something to target gays and minorities was not too far-fetched, especially in the post civil rights-Stonewall milieu of culture war backlash stoked by conservatives for political gain coupled with distrust over Watergate, COINTELPRO and other misdeeds fueling public paranoia against The Man.
Some of this sentiment carries over as residue fueling concerns over the origin of SARS-Cov-2 as something other than a zoonosis. After Tuskegee the new mRNA vaccines might be a hard sell amongst minorities. Fauci got ahead of that by communicating with my man LL on his platform. Will Smith’s old DJ Jeff was on the program too:
https://youtu.be/KloxyjK36v0
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:05:44 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
As a retrovirus (lentivirus) HIV itself wasn’t all that sudden was it? On >> human timescales retrovirus evolution seems quantum, but it was brewing in >> some non-human primate before it made the leap into people, which was
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That
does not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you
think AIDS was designed).
probably a mundane event in itself.
I'm talking with somebody who thinks that phyla appearing over the course
of 10 million years is sudden, so, yes, in that context I think the appearance of AIDS was sudden.
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so far
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished product seems abrupt.
as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like the Cambrian
fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to
justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I
failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What
is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and
the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design
or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided
evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided
evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your
explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution. That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality >>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job? >>>>>>>>>>
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change
and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.
I understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that the
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent >>>>>>>> to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic
systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short >>>> period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find
similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as
the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to.
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic
criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives.
It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number
of cases, and beats chance.
than computer history.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution.
Not just highly concerned, but also fully functional from the very first evidence of their existence.
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly
conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should
be the case.
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed.
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern
across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and
b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as
e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and
knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now
needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads
to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should
expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally
give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the >>>> globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance"
are know to change.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They areNo change was only one part.
rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to
environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so
than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you
gave for "being designed"
The better of two options.
Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom >>> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What
aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words,
abrupt appearance and then stability?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from
that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you
would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything
points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back -
flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the
time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the
flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities.
Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another
50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies
of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of
people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for
a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor,
but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small
people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain
that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were
Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots
of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of
documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have
considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from
the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of
the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what
language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what
ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns,
in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any
physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they
were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even
less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces
of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples
heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you
leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much
higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things
become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that
the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets
destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck
is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment
to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify
traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to
reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again
we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better
analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were
invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian
explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of
earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>
asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there
is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the
phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it.
There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest
surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere
centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from
as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have
so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially
the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >> in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again
unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain
controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to
drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker,
A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan
evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably
controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >> what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with
other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of
that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely
zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new
observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level
of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements.
One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build
on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for
innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place,
it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less
restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then
"break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water.
With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body
plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or
even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for
it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 6:40:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH
QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when
possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human
engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved"
virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering is nowhere near
as capable as
functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) >>>>>>>>>>>>> in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes
themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you
expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I
disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could
have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided
evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have
cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your
explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For
someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
I think Ron D. would need to do a LOT of reading before cracking Erwin & Valentine,
and I doubt he'd be receptive to anything in it anyway. It'd be a harder sell than even
Peter.
On Jan 7, 2023 at 9:37:30 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
There seems to be some controversy here, I read from 13 million yearsOnce again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
5 to 19 million years. So, who do I trust. I tene to trust the encyclopedia britannica more that names I don't know. No reflection meant on you.
On Jan 6, 2023 at 4:41:48 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to >>>> do with design?
You did not answer this. Perhaps that is because the answer is "nothing."
You keep insisting on just one condition, when I listed multiple conditions. Not just time, but original functional condition, as well as virtually unchanged
and the origin of complex compound life (which includes all higher life forms)
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re >British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not >watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
product seems abrupt.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution.
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an intelligence
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>>
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of >> course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that >> there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like >> the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc. >> The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we >> have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a >> paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was >> the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like >> that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they >> have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of >> years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are >> not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion >> would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them >> as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for >> identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things. >> When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where >> your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and
complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means. I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no intelligence ever on the planet..
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to >>>> do with design?
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:50:44 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:>> > Athel
Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:> >> On 2023-01-08 02:03:21
+0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>> >>>> >>> In the
paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding> >>>
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the
absence> >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor
effectively> >>> undermines> >>> evolution.> >>> >> When you say
"abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some> >> millions of
years".> >>> > On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some
time. Since you’re> > British I should use the tea steeping analogy
instead. But to someone not> > watching either process unfold, the
sudden appearance of the finished> > product seems abrupt.
By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so far>
as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like the Cambrian>
fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years;
mainly> in England until 1987.
And if you'd brewed Darjeeling yesterday and Earl Grey this morning it
would seem like the abrupt appearance of a new phylum.
On Jan 7, 2023 at 12:11:48 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:48 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not true, an lava flow from an erupting volcano is undirected and
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:54:02 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Thermodynamics without information has the exact opposite effect.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Please provide examples of this.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards
acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for
beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to >>>>>>>>> believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously.
There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not
right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It >>>>>> occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the >>>>>> second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative
mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and >>>>>> selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New
information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantage >>>>>>>> over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to >>>>>>>> another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be >>>>>>>> endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None ofBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound >>>>>>> eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian >>>>>>> in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is >>>>>>> real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that
the job is not done yet.
hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion >>>>>> years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we >>>>>> have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know >>>>>> the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it >>>>>> simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a >>>>>> miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations to >>>>>>>> further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely isI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer
to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow
scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed.
that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and
most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations
are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the >>>>>> flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there is >>>>>>> "the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins.Some animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the >>>>>>>>> universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>>>>>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no >>>>>>>> evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons
of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could
not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative >>>>>>>> genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were
present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the
precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in >>>>>>> that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence.
Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory >>>>>>> and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes >>>>>> to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever >>>>>> reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people >>>>>> that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences >>>>>> between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times >>>>>> faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them
elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Seat belts were invented for gliders, but are now used also in
automobiles, airplanes, some roller coasters, and probably elsewhere.
Zippers are used on pants, jackets, boots, suitcases, tents, upholstery, >>>> sleeping bags, and umbrella cases, to name just the few uses that come >>>> immediately to mind.
Do I even need to mention transistors and screws?
Design is done inWhere would one look for a drawing board or models?
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved. >>>>>> None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not >>>>>> look designed.
Personal archives. Junk yards. Neglected corporate storage facilities. >>>> Dumpsters.
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
I don't understand the relevance. Models are not simply reproductions. >>>>
It would seem from the very beginning, even before
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source? And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
That drive started right after the Big Bang (if not sooner). The
formation of atoms, molecules, stars, and planets all show a drive
pushing to greater complexity. Some have suggested it is a law of
thermodynamics. As for its source, my knowledge of statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics is not sufficient to provide an answer.
Actually information with a driving force creates increasing order and
complexity. Random unguided thermo tends towards disorder and
chaos.
That is not true, or at least, it does not take more than a trivial
amount of information to produce order. What matters is not
information, but a flow of energy.
produces no order.
A tornado is undirected flowing energy which produces no order
In fact. I think to produce order there has to be energy with
some guiding force; or constraint; or barier.
Such flows of energy produce a lotYour pan of boiling water, is not quite the same, in that the eye of the stove is directed energy, even though not intelligent. But after all intelligent is in effect a guiding force.
of entropy, but patterns of increasing order seem always to appear in
the midst. The classic example is a pan of water on a burner. This
does not produce chaos (or at least, not right away); rather, a regular
pattern of convection cells appears. It's almost like Entropy knows
what is necessary to create more of it, and then it does so, even if
that requires creating pockets of order in the process. Life, for all
the order contained within it, is an entropy-increasing device.
Life is not random, in that DNA provides information. Once a body
dies, decay sets in which is the result of the loss of information.
So are stars. The creation of a star does not require much information,The creation of stars is caused by gravity.
just a local increase in density of a cloud. From that, increasing
order and complexity arise spontaneously. But notwithstanding all that
order, the net result is much faster increases in entropy.
Entropy is a factor of the second law of thermodynamics. The
(Also, please note that "entropy", "disorder", and "chaos" have distinct
and different meanings. For sake of communication, please respect those
meanings.)
increase of entropy over time results in disorder, but there are circumstances where there is a decrease of entropy leading
to order. Directed energy is the cause of decreasing entropy.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On 2023-01-08 16:57:14 +0000, erik simpson said:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:50:44 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden
wrote:
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:>> > Athel
Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:> >> On 2023-01-08
02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>> >>>> >>> In >>> the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding> >>>
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the
absence> >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common
ancestor effectively> >>> undermines> >>> evolution.> >>> >> When you
say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some> >> millions
of years".> >>> > On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes
some time. Since you’re> > British I should use the tea steeping
analogy instead. But to someone not> > watching either process
unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished> > product seems abrupt.
By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so
as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like theCambrian> fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years;
mainly> in England until 1987.
And if you'd brewed Darjeeling yesterday and Earl Grey this morning it
would seem like the abrupt appearance of a new phylum.
Good comparison
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 6:40:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:At $987.99 a very hard sell for anyone:
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit fliesEvidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH
QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when
possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human
engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved"
virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering is nowhere near
as capable as
functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes
themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who >>>>>>>> mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for >>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous. >>>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views >>>>>>> in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox >>>>>> genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by >>>>>> unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion >>>>>> could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question. >>>>>> You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless >>>>>> claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after >>>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >>>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>>>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For >>>> someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
I think Ron D. would need to do a LOT of reading before cracking Erwin
& Valentine,
and I doubt he'd be receptive to anything in it anyway. It'd be a
harder sell than even
Peter.
https://www.amazon.com/Cambrian-Explosion-Construction-Animal-Biodiversity/dp/1936221039/
My copy of E&V was an order of magnitude cheaper! Sadly not an ebook.
Holding a heavy text in hand is so 20th century. Where’s the electronic highlighting and notes feature? Copy/paste for quoting? Primitives.
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 6:40:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett" >>>>>>>>>>>> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit fliesEvidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH
QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when
possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human
engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved"
virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering is nowhere near
as capable as
functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) >>>>>>>>>>>>> in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes
themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and
feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
conclusions.
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who >>>>>>> mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for >>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many >>>>>>> different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your >>>>>>> expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden.
I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous. >>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views >>>>>> in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox >>>>> genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by >>>>> unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion >>>>> could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question. >>>>> You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless >>>>> claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after >>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the >>>>> Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor.
There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution. >>> That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For >>> someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the >>> dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim >>> is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
I think Ron D. would need to do a LOT of reading before cracking Erwin & Valentine,
and I doubt he'd be receptive to anything in it anyway. It'd be a harder sell than even
Peter.
At $987.99 a very hard sell for anyone:
https://www.amazon.com/Cambrian-Explosion-Construction-Animal-Biodiversity/dp/1936221039/
My copy of E&V was an order of magnitude cheaper! Sadly not an ebook. Holding a heavy text in hand is so 20th century. Where’s the electronic highlighting and notes feature? Copy/paste for quoting? Primitives.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-08 16:57:14 +0000, erik simpson said:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:50:44 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden
wrote:
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:>> > Athel
Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:> >> On 2023-01-08
02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>> >>>> >>> In >>> the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding> >>> >>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the
absence> >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common
ancestor effectively> >>> undermines> >>> evolution.> >>> >> When you >>> say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some> >> millions
of years".> >>> > On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes
some time. Since you’re> > British I should use the tea steeping >>> analogy instead. But to someone not> > watching either process
unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished> > product seems abrupt. >>> By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so
as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like theCambrian> fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years;
mainly> in England until 1987.
And if you'd brewed Darjeeling yesterday and Earl Grey this morning it
would seem like the abrupt appearance of a new phylum.
Good comparison
which reminds me of some research people in Trier did recently -
analyzing tea bags to identify all the insects that live on tea plants
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-dna-of-hundreds-of-insect-species-is-in-your-tea-180980367/
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*If abruptly special created why the clunky carry overs shared across groups >like AP Hox collinearity and the inversion of DV patterning? That bespeaks >common ancestry not de novo creation. Darwin historically deconstructed the >archetype of Goethe’s leaves and Owen’s skeleton. Cuvier’s embranchements
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>>>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not >>> watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
were mere interpretive artifice. Geoffroy won in the long term though he >didn’t live to see it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8598900/
“Functional studies seem now to confirm, as first suggested by E. Geoffroy >Saint-Hilaire in 1822, that there was an inversion of the dorsoventral axis >during animal evolution. A conserved system of extracellular signals
provides positional information for the allocation of embryonic cells to >specific tissue types both in Drosophila and vertebrates; the ventral
region of Drosophila is homologous to the dorsal side of the vertebrate. >Developmental studies are now revealing some of the characteristics of the >ancestral animal that gave rise to the arthropod and mammalian lineages,
for which we propose the name Urbilateria.”- E M De Robertis and Y Sasai
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:05:43 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-08 16:57:14 +0000, erik simpson said:which reminds me of some research people in Trier did recently -
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:50:44 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden
wrote:
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:>> > Athel
Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:> >> On 2023-01-08
02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>> >>>> >>> In >>>>> the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding> >>> >>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the
absence> >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common
ancestor effectively> >>> undermines> >>> evolution.> >>> >> When you >>>>> say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some> >> millions >>>>> of years".> >>> > On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes >>>>> some time. Since you’re> > British I should use the tea steeping >>>>> analogy instead. But to someone not> > watching either process
unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished> > product seems abrupt. >>>>> By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so
as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like theCambrian> fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years;
mainly> in England until 1987.
And if you'd brewed Darjeeling yesterday and Earl Grey this morning it >>>> would seem like the abrupt appearance of a new phylum.
Good comparison
analyzing tea bags to identify all the insects that live on tea plants
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-dna-of-hundreds-of-insect-species-is-in-your-tea-180980367/
Ugh! Think I'll stick to coffee. Extra strong, so there's no chance of seeing all the
animal fragments and excrement that's probably present.
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Saturday, January 7,
2023 at 6:40:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:> >> On 1/6/23 5:30 PM,
jillery wrote:> >>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean
<rdhall...@gmail.com>> >>> wrote:> >>>> >>>> On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12
AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 05
Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote:>
<69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery"
14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>> wrote:> >>>>>>>>
<69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery"
06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:>
<69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2023On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery"
05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:>
Daggett"> >>>>>>>>>>>> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer
wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery"On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean
<69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02
Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM
EST, "Mark Isaak"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>>
12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2022wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:>
even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact>[...]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also,
repeated requests> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you to do so. Instead yousuggests deliberate and intentional design, despite
merely assert it repeatedly and> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is
that?> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have on numerous
occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a
marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer>
always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what>today.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
designed."> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A point that thisdesigners do, or even can do; therefore it must be
argument misses is that evolution excels at producing>
algorithms) is what> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers turn to when their owncomplexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary
intelligent design efforts are not up> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the task.>
systematic, foward looking> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineeringBut to look at your reasons . . .>
A hard empirical evidence of
design and for these> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.>
far known> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a description;These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so
nothing to connect with design.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit
flies> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a singles of genes); to
zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of genes) to>
is evidence for evolution, not design.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).>
Evidence for common descent, which
Cambrian explosion;> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even theorizes as the possible3) they are ancient going potentially back to the
cause of this "explosion" IE a massive> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla>
to be highly conserved (IE little of> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change)ariving later in the fossil record).>
Nothing to do with design.>
4) these homeobox genes are said
from their first appearance shown by their commonality>
against evolution if it> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the case that they werethroughout the animal kingdom.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence
extremely conserved, with evidence for> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no
change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of>
criticism: When asked for evidence for why you> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeevolving differently in different lineages.>
So I must echo jillery's
design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,>
another tangent.) We> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already know that those thingsthe original subject was eyes; now you are off on
are connected with design *in your mind*;> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we want to
know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want>
start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatto give you a chance to make your case.>
Here's a suggestion for how to
properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention>
need by applying science, mathamatics> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and engineeringbiology at all until you get an answer to that.>
Engineering is design to meet a
manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic>
AND TO DESIGN WITH> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COSTcircuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical>
devises, etc, to resolve> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
EFFICITIVENESS AS A> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to
utilize tried and true methods when> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.>
because> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of health issues)> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire
above is a fair summary of human> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering. Will youI acknowledge that what you describe
acknowledge that what you describe above is the> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark>
admit that if> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems asof purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you
complex as living organisms, those> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems would be
way overpriced, and the company you worked for would> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?>
anything human> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineers are capable of.>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond
engineering is virtuall never stable or> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connstant.Procducts, and systems by human> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Engineering constantly, improves, methods change> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
building systems become more and more efficient. This> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
compared to homeobox> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genes that remain "highly
conserved"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtually unchanged and constant,>
parts today, as at> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time of their inception during thecontrolling the genes involved in the expression of body
Cambrian. Human> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering is nowhere near>
future.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Homeobox gene are just genes foras capable as> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functioning in the distant
proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Humans
have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein>
transcription factors> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use essentially the same fold. Sofolding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other
you are factually incorrect.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Humans have
not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather>
using brick, wires,> >>>>>>>>>>>> glass etc> >>>>>>>>>>>> but theturned to existing coded info. A person can build a house
person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the sites that the> >>>>>>>>>>>>> homebox genes bind to. TheThe "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of
arrangement of these binding sites adjacent> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off)> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
in concert is the> >>>>>>>>>>>>> special part, not the homeobox genes>
suggest that you don't even understand the system.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>themselves. And so, the things you write> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
themselves. You could swap> >>>>>>>>>>>>> out a different transcriptionYou keep writing that it is the homeobox genes
factor if you also swapped out the associated> >>>>>>>>>>>>> binding
sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.>
"design" present all over the genome.> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Except theMoreover, you have effectively the same
"design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one>
and upwards in complexity to larger networks,> >>>>>>>>>>>>> withsubsequent> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gene, to turning on or off two,
additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that>
provide further feedback.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In summary, youfunction like timers, and environmental sensors that
apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the
analogous> >>>>>>>>>>>>> regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range
of complexity, from very simple> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to very complex.
Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually>
suspect.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that homeobox genesunderstand renders your claims about seeing design
do not themselves express for body parts> >>>>>>>>>>>> but they are
master control genes that bind with downstream genes that> >>>>>>>>>>>>
express body parts in animal phyla.> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
appreciate what> >>>>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complexAs a self-identified electrical engineer, you should
regulatory networks. Regulatory> >>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn
other genes on and off, but also amplify and> >>>>>>>>>>> reduce other
genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In> >>>>>>>>>>>
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,>
inputs and> >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required.inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple
As with the most> >>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the
complexity of genetic logic> >>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to
its component parts.> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jill, the main point I
was trying to make is the fact that these genes are> >>>>>>>>>> ancient
present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the>
beginning of the> >>>>>>>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by someexpression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the
paleontologist that these hox genes are> >>>>>>>>>> what initiated the
Cambrian explosion.> >>>>>>>>>> They are said to be highly conserved,
and universal in animals of the> >>>>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me
implies deliberate purposeful design.> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I
attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the>
detail> >>>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through toconclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in
arrive at your> >>>>>>>>>> conclusion.> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank
have expresses your main point> >>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways.I acknowledge your main point. You
What you fail to acknowledge is my main> >>>>>>>>> point. That some
genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how> >>>>>>>>> you
think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's>
repeating> >>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. Asas if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely
Sidney Harris> >>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more
explicit here".> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That does not explain how or the
evidence you used to arrive at your> >>>>>>>> conclusions.> >>>>>>>>
haven't explained> >>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my mainYou're absolutely correct; pointing out that you
point. Not sure why you> >>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your
comments are yet another attempt to> >>>>>>> pass your burden of proof
onto me, a false equivalence.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read the quoted text.
Even you should recognize it was you who> >>>>>>> mentioned homeobox
genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for> >>>>>>> purposeful design
and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should> >>>>>>> be able to
understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to> >>>>>>>
make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to>
how you> >>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion arebe more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many>
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain
evidence for> >>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against evolution.>
with your> >>>>>>> expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven'tPerhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree
explained why I> >>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so
that removes your burden.> >>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many
ways. If you disagree with my> >>>>>>> explanations, or if you're
confused by them, the place to say so is in> >>>>>>> reply to those
posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on> >>>>>>> me and
what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden.> >>>>>>>>
burden to convince> >>>>>> you. And I know and understand why and whereOk, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my
I missed my burden to> >>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of
homeobox genes and where I> >>>>>> failed to convince you that the
Cambrian explosion is erroneous.> >>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass
my burden on you. So, please explain the> >>>>>> evidence that you
appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views> >>>>>> in regards of
the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please> >>>>>> explain
your views and the evidence upon which you base your views> >>>>>>
regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once
again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say>
of reasoning> >>>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument.
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line
need to do better> >>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.>
them hope, pleasure> >>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme orI believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives
reason. This also applies to me.> >>>>>> I've read, studied and
searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my> >>>>>> paradigm.
But I'm just about ready to give up!> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> My "views" as
expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox> >>>>> genes and
the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as> >>>>> evidence
for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by> >>>>>
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What>
that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion> >>>>> could *not* haveis in dispute is their cause.> >>>>>> >>>>> IIUC your "view" is
happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have> >>>>> happened by
purposeful design. These are two separate positive> >>>>> claims. To
make these claims without basis is to beg the question.> >>>>> You
don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary.> >>>>>
So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless>
occurrence of homeobox genes and> >>>>> the Cambrian Explosion areclaims.> >>>>>> >>>>> OTOH I have expressed my "view" that
*consistent with* either purposeful design> >>>>> or unguided
evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could> >>>>> have
done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided> >>>>>
evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided>
have> >>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions ofevolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I
years after> >>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series,
as examples of that> >>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution
necessarily follows.> >>>>>> >>>>> So now your turn. On what basis do
you say homeobox genes and the> >>>>> Cambrian Explosion are evidence
for purposeful design and/or against> >>>>> unguided evolution? And
this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare> >>>>> facts; I've read them
all many times over the years. Just give your> >>>>> explanation.>
the abrupt> >>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back toMaybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain
a common ancestor.> >>>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as
to what ancestors> >>>> preceded this Cambrian "explosion".> >>>> >>>>
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as> >>Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.> >>
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this> >>
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".> >>> As
Cambrian> >>> Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/orstated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the
against evolution.> >>> That's your claim, posted and reposted many
times over many years. For> >>> someone who insists to have explained
this many times and in detail,> >>> you have a lot of trouble actually
doing so. If you can't connect the> >>> dots between your claim's
premise and its conclusion, then your claim> >>> is just another
baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's> >>> not an
explanation.> >>>> >> > I think Ron D. would need to do a LOT of
reading before cracking Erwin & Valentine,> > and I doubt he'd be
receptive to anything in it anyway. It'd be a harder sell than even> >
Peter.> >
At $987.99 a very hard sell for anyone:>>
https://www.amazon.com/Cambrian-Explosion-Construction-Animal-Biodiversity/dp/1936221039/>>
My copy of E&V was an order of magnitude cheaper! Sadly not an ebook.>
Holding a heavy text in hand is so 20th century. Where’s the
electronic> highlighting and notes feature? Copy/paste for quoting?
Primitives.
Ouch! I checked at Amazon in the UK and they have it as "unavailable".
(The UK printing
had much better illustrations.)
Truly a shame if it isn't avaialble, even as used.
Most people who bought it probably have no intention of removing it from their libraries.
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:05:43 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-08 16:57:14 +0000, erik simpson said:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:50:44 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden
wrote:
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:>> > Athel
Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:> >> On 2023-01-08
02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>> >>>> >>> In
the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding> >>> >>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the
absence> >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common
ancestor effectively> >>> undermines> >>> evolution.> >>> >> When you >>> say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some> >> millions >>> of years".> >>> > On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes >>> some time. Since you’re> > British I should use the tea steeping
analogy instead. But to someone not> > watching either process
unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished> > product seems abrupt. >>> By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so
as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like theCambrian> fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years;
mainly> in England until 1987.
And if you'd brewed Darjeeling yesterday and Earl Grey this morning it >> would seem like the abrupt appearance of a new phylum.
Good comparison
................................................which reminds me of some research people in Trier did recently -
analyzing tea bags to identify all the insects that live on tea plants
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-dna-of-hundreds-of-insect-species-is-in-your-tea-180980367/
Ugh! Think I'll stick to coffee. Extra strong, so there's no chance of seeing all theJust don't let anyone give you kopi luwak (civet coffee).
animal fragments and excrement that's probably present.
On 2023-01-08 17:49:02 +0000, erik simpson said:[-]
At $987.99 a very hard sell for anyone:>>
Ouch! I checked at Amazon in the UK and they have it as "unavailable".
That's what they told men, as well. Also Amazon.fr.
(The UK printing
had much better illustrations.)
The most extreme case of that that I've seen is with Richard Dawkins's
book The Ancestor's Tale. When I had Amazon reviews I said this:
The two versions of this book are very different. The Weidenfeld and
Nicolson version (which may need a trip to Amazon.co.uk) is more
expensive than the Houghton Mifflin version, but it is well worth the difference. Printed on high-quality paper, it is profusely and
beautifully illustrated, with clear phylogenetic trees illustrating the relationships discussed in the text, and many colour photographs of the organisms discussed. The Houghton Mifflin edition is printed on paper
of lower quality, and it lacks the colour illustrations; it can only be regarded as the cheap edition. Of course, if you only want Dawkins's
text you can read it in either edition, but if you want the work as a
whole you need to have the Weidenfeld and Nicolson edition.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:05:43 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:I usually drink coffee, but have tea when I run low on my refrigerated pot
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-08 16:57:14 +0000, erik simpson said:which reminds me of some research people in Trier did recently -
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:50:44 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:>> > Athel
Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:> >> On 2023-01-08
02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>> >>>> >>> In
the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding> >>> >>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the
absence> >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common
ancestor effectively> >>> undermines> >>> evolution.> >>> >> When you >>>>>> say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some> >> millions >>>>>> of years".> >>> > On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes >>>>>> some time. Since you’re> > British I should use the tea steeping >>>>>> analogy instead. But to someone not> > watching either process
unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished> > product seems abrupt. >>>>>> By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so >>>>>>> as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like the
Cambrian> fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years;
mainly> in England until 1987.
And if you'd brewed Darjeeling yesterday and Earl Grey this morning it >>>>> would seem like the abrupt appearance of a new phylum.
Good comparison
analyzing tea bags to identify all the insects that live on tea plants
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-dna-of-hundreds-of-insect-species-is-in-your-tea-180980367/
Ugh! Think I'll stick to coffee. Extra strong, so there's no chance of seeing all the
animal fragments and excrement that's probably present.
of coffee in the morning. I go for English Tea Time or Chai recently, but like Lady Grey. Earl Grey has an odd smell.
For coffee it’s Gevalia because the motherland beckons.
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:05:43 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-01-08 16:57:14 +0000, erik simpson said:which reminds me of some research people in Trier did recently -
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 7:50:44 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden
wrote:
On 2023-01-08 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:>> > Athel
Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:> >> On 2023-01-08
02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>> >>>> >>> In >>>>> the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding> >>> >>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the
absence> >>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common
ancestor effectively> >>> undermines> >>> evolution.> >>> >> When you >>>>> say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some> >> millions >>>>> of years".> >>> > On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes >>>>> some time. Since you’re> > British I should use the tea steeping >>>>> analogy instead. But to someone not> > watching either process
unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished> > product seems abrupt. >>>>> By chance I was making some tea when I read your post, and yes, so
as my wife was concerned it just appeared abruptly like theCambrian> fauna.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years;
mainly> in England until 1987.
And if you'd brewed Darjeeling yesterday and Earl Grey this morning it >>>> would seem like the abrupt appearance of a new phylum.
Good comparison
analyzing tea bags to identify all the insects that live on tea plants
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-dna-of-hundreds-of-insect-species-is-in-your-tea-180980367/
Ugh! Think I'll stick to coffee. Extra strong, so there's no chance of seeing all the
animal fragments and excrement that's probably present.
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 6:40:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:At $987.99 a very hard sell for anyone:
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruitEvidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH
QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when
possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human
engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved"
virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering is nowhere near
as capable as
functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA
sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes
themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a
protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to larger networks,
with additional
conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further
feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very
simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who >>>>>>>>> mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for >>>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many >>>>>>>>> different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for >>>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your >>>>>>>>> expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous. >>>>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views >>>>>>>> in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning..
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox >>>>>>> genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by >>>>>>> unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion >>>>>>> could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have >>>>>>> happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question. >>>>>>> You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless >>>>>>> claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after >>>>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the >>>>>>> Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare >>>>>>> facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >>>>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor.
There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution. >>>>> That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For >>>>> someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail, >>>>> you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the >>>>> dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim >>>>> is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's >>>>> not an explanation.
I think Ron D. would need to do a LOT of reading before cracking Erwin & Valentine,
and I doubt he'd be receptive to anything in it anyway. It'd be a harder sell than even
Peter.
https://www.amazon.com/Cambrian-Explosion-Construction-Animal-Biodiversity/dp/1936221039/
My copy of E&V was an order of magnitude cheaper! Sadly not an ebook.
Holding a heavy text in hand is so 20th century. Where’s the electronic
highlighting and notes feature? Copy/paste for quoting? Primitives.
Ouch! I checked at Amazon in the UK and they have it as "unavailable". (The UK printing
had much better illustrations.) Truly a shame if it isn't avaialble, even as used.
Most people who bought it probably have no intention of removing it from their libraries.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:11:44 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not >> address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
You wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "computer code" is counterexample, as it's almost never
conserved, yet you agree is designed. Since even I understand this,
there's no good reason why you don't.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnosticNo, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives.
It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>> of cases, and beats chance.
than computer history.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >> negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution.
Your comments above imply you have evidence which shows Ediacaran
biota are *not* ancestral to Cambrian biota. Yet you specify none.
Why is that? If you have no evidence, this would be another case of
basing your conclusions on a lack of evidence aka GOTG.
IIUC your comments above imply you think unless ancestry can be
proved, then the most parsimonious explanation is created kinds which falsifies evolution. If so, how do reconcile this with your repeated refutation of spontaneous generation? If not, then how does "this
single fact" falsify evolution?
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highlyNot just highly concerned [conserved?], but also fully functional from the >> very first
conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>> be the case.
evidence of their existence.
You keep using that phrase "fully functional". ISTM any living
organism which reproduces itself is by definition "fully functional".
So what you mean by that phrase?
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed. Besides mountains
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern
across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and
b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and
knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now
needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
are know to change.
Once again, you wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "mountains" is counterexample, as they are universal yet
you agree are *not* designed. Since even I understand this, there's
no good reason why you don't.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They areNo change was only one part.
rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to
environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so
than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>> gave for "being designed"
Review what you wrote and reconcile that with Burkhard's
counterexamples.
The better of two options.With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>>>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom >>>> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words,
abrupt appearance and then stability?
That's your *opinion" without basis. Do you understand what
"evidence" means?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from
that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything
points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back -
flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the
time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities.
Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another
50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies
of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of
people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for
a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor,
but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small
people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain
that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were
Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots
of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of
documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from
the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what
language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what
ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any
physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they >>> were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces
of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples
heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much
higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that
the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets
destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck
is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify
traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to
reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again
we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better
analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian
explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of
earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>
asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there
is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the
phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it.
There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest
surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from
as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have
so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially
the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >>> in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again
unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain
controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to
drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >>> A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan
evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >>> what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with
other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely
zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level
of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build
on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for
innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then
"break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water.
With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body
plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or
even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for
it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>>>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On 1/7/23 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 7, 2023 at 9:37:30 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:There seems to be some controversy here, I read from 13 million years
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit fliesEvidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who >>>>>>>> mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for >>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many >>>>>>>> different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous. >>>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views >>>>>>> in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox >>>>>> genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by >>>>>> unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion >>>>>> could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question. >>>>>> You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless >>>>>> claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after >>>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the >>>>>> Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >>>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>>>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
5 to 19 million years. So, who do I trust. I tene to trust the encyclopedia >> britannica more that names I don't know. No reflection meant on you.
Jim Valentine and Doug Erwin happen to be two of the foremost
invertebrate paleontologists in the world. Perhaps the fact that they're names you don't know says more about your competence than theirs.
Ok how can one know that the Edicaran or the early Cambrian eras hadAs I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For >>>> someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the >>>> dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
transitional fossils? There is no evidence. except for evolution to be a
reaityl there had to have been. In the final analysis history is written in >> the rocks.
Once again, the small shelly fauna and the ichnofossil record are
exactly the evidence you claim doesn't exist,
Namacalathus and Cloudina. Erwin & Valentine should be available in any decent university library. If nothing else, you should be able to get it
by interlibrary loan. The first step in repairing your ignorance,
however, is to realize that it needs repair.
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
Yet, I will acknowledge that, at the same time does, absence
of intermediates does not prove design.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My..
impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure
or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason.
The use of “paradigm” is in itself a red flag. There is a difference >>> between your subjective whims about evolution and the objective facts of >>> the matter and actual work geneticists, molecular biologists, developmental >>> biologists, and paleontologists have done. You don’t even manage to scratch
the surface in your ineffective ruminations about “design”. Paley and Owen
spin in their graves.
This also applies to me.You need to try much harder to match the futile effort others have put into >>> trying to edify you on these matters e
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 02:26:05 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 8:30:46 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>But the fact remains compound animals appeared comparatively abruptly
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main >>>>>>>>> point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how >>>>>>>>> you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who
mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for
purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many
different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous.
So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views
in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox
genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by
unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion
could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question.
You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless
claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after
the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the
Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt
appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute. As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For
someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the
dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
in the strata of the Cambrian without being preceded by intermediates
back to a common ancestor. Maybe this does not prove design, but
it effectively discounts evolution, except through_faith_ that there must
been intermediates previously.
preceding
Once again, you assert a false equivalence. The *plausibility* of
ancestral forms of Cambrian organisms is based on hard evidence of the existence of prior Ediacaran forms. I acknowledge there is
insufficient evidence to *prove* that ancestry. However, that lack *plausibly* explained by the nature of taphonomy, that fossils are at
best spotty recordings of events in time, and that Ediacaran and
Cambrian fossils from over half a billion years ago are necessarily
among the rarest of rare fossils.
IIUC your argument above is to substitute design for evolution, to
claim the *plausiblity* that Cambrian forms were designed. At the
same time, you reject the *plausibility* that Ediacaran organisms are intermediate to Cambrian forms, based on an admitted lack of evidence
for design. This shows you misunderstand what can logically inferred
from a lack of evidence.
of ancestry can reasonably be presumed to have been not just designed,
but spontaneously created aka ex nihilo. For someone who has
repeatedly denied spontaneous generation, this is a remarkable
argument for you to make.
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>>>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of >>> course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that >>> there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent >>> evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc. >>> The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was >>> the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like >>> that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they >>> have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are >>> not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for >>> identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things. >>> When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the >>> paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where >>> your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and
complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an
intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that >> spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no >> other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no >> intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer. That's not an unreasonable goal.
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because we know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars, computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains, rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g. mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails, too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum, the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc).
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to >>>>> do with design?
On 1/7/23 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:True, but it has a reputation and one to uphold.
On Jan 7, 2023 at 9:37:30 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> >> wrote:
There seems to be some controversy here, I read from 13 million yearsOnce again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
5 to 19 million years. So, who do I trust. I tene to trust the encyclopedia >> britannica more that names I don't know. No reflection meant on you.
Um, Encyclopaedia Britannica was written by people whose names you don't know.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>>>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of >>> course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that >>> there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent >>> evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc. >>> The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was >>> the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like >>> that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they >>> have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are >>> not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for >>> identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things. >>> When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the >>> paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where >>> your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and
complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an
intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that >> spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no >> other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no >> intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would
still be based on the available evidence.
Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least not
the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for everything except design.
And since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not >> address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design.
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect.
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that >>>>>>>> express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most
sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the >>>>>> Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are >>>>>> what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
Sigh... Yes of course not. That is the point. Neither the code itself
nor its implementation on a machine is the result of random actions
(neither is evolution, but that's by-the-be). I used the two
interchangeably as examples only because you too move between genetic
code and the animals on which the genetic code is expressed (the
equivalence to the computer)
Both are are clearly designed, we can all agree on that. But they do not display the feature that you stated as indicative of design - having
highly conserved traits.
Therefore, something is wrong with your criterion, and therefore also
your argument that depends on it.
Maybe this analogy helps you to understand the problem with your line of reasoning:
Imagine I told you that apples are dangerous. You'd be undoubtedly
surprised, and might ask: Why, why do you think that?
Now, in response I tell you: "Because they are red"
I'm pretty certain that answer would leave you non the wiser. Yes, we
all agree (some) apples are red, but why would that be evidence that
they are also dangerous?
At this point, you might decide to point me at things that are also red,
but very clearly not dangerous, for instance radishes, poppies, cardinal beetle, ladybugs etc. And indeed, I'd be forced to agree that none of
them is dangerous. You'd then point me to lots of things that are in
fact dangerous, but not red - crocodiles, main battle tanks, white phosphorous etc And again I'd be forced to agree that all these are
indeed dangerous, but not red
At this point, you should feel rightly dissatisfied by my initial
answer. Yes, we still all agree apples are red, but I failed to give any
good reason why they are in my view dangerous.
Your argument is very much like this. You state some observed
properties, and claim that they show design. But there is no logical connection between them and "being designed". At this point, I and
others gave you examples of things that are not designed, but have the features you claim are evidence of design, and things that are clearly designed, but are lacking the features you gave as evidence for design.
(and we also gave you some of the things we observe in designed objects,
but are clearly missing in biological organisms)
With other word, your position that species are designed is not any
better supported than my claim that apples are dangerous, pointing at
their colour.
No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic
criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives.
It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>> of cases, and beats chance.
than computer history.
Not sure what you mean, My argument was that if we look at the evolution
of both computer code and computers, we do not find what you claim was indicative for design, highly preserved sequences. Now my point in the preceding paragraph says that this does not strictly falsify your
criterion - some counter examples are for a diagnostic tool permissible
(many tests have some false positives and false negatives) but you have
so far failed to give any reason to believe that your criterion is
correct even in the majority of cases.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >> negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution.
Then you haven't read carefully. Nothing in the theory of evolution
predicts that the earliest organisms fossilize so well that after
millions of years they are still identifiable for us, given current technologies. Indeed, I gave several reasons why we should not expect
this. And for every historical study, you will at one point run out of preserved evidence. "Fully Formed Schafers" are documented suddenly from
the 16th century onward, yet I'm perfectly certain that my ancestors
were not dropped on this planned by space aliens, or suddenly poofed
into existence from nothing.
Not just highly concerned, but also fully functional from the very first
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly
conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>> be the case.
evidence of their existence.
That is a different argument that I addressed in another section of my
post. The theory of evolution does not predict "non-functional traits"
Quite on the contrary. Design by contrast often creates not functional
or not fully functional objects: models, prototypes, worked examples etc
etc.
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed.
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern
across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and
b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and
knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now
needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
Indeed not. That's the point, and why they are a problem for you. They clearly are not designed, yet they display the criterion you gave for
design, i.e. being largely immune to environmental change
Besides mountains
are know to change.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They areNo change was only one part.
rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to
environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so
than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>> gave for "being designed"
And I have shown the same problem for all the criteria that you gave.
None of them seems to pick out something that we find only, or even typically, in designed things only.
The better of two options.
Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>>>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom >>>> ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words,
abrupt appearance and then stability?
Sorry, don't understand at all what you mean with this. Which two
options? Your claim is that designed things appear abruptly. I asked why
you think that. There is for me absolutely nothing in "abrupt
appearance" that indicates design, unless you think, as per my example,
that the moon also was designed.
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from
that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything
points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back -
flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the
time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities.
Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another
50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies
of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of
people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for
a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor,
but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small
people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain
that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were
Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots
of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of
documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from
the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what
language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what
ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any
physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they >>> were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces
of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples
heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much
higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that
the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets
destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck
is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify
traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to
reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again
we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better
analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian
explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of
earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>
asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there
is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the
phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it.
There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest
surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from
as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have
so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially
the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >>> in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again
unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain
controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to
drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >>> A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan
evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >>> what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with
other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely
zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level
of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build
on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for
innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then
"break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water.
With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body
plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or
even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for
it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>>>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your
conclusion.
Thank you
On 1/7/23 7:05 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Explain where I'm wrong
On Jan 7, 2023 at 12:11:48 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:48 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not true, an lava flow from an erupting volcano is undirected and
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:54:02 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Thermodynamics without information has the exact opposite effect.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Please provide examples of this.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards
acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for >>>>>>>>>> beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to >>>>>>>>>> believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously.
There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not
right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It
occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the >>>>>>> second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative >>>>>>> mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and >>>>>>> selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New >>>>>>> information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantage >>>>>>>>> over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to >>>>>>>>> another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be >>>>>>>>> endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None ofBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound >>>>>>>> eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian >>>>>>>> in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is >>>>>>>> real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that
the job is not done yet.
hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion >>>>>>> years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we >>>>>>> have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know
the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it >>>>>>> simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a >>>>>>> miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations to >>>>>>>>> further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely isI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer
to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow
scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed. >>>>>>>>>
that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and
most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations
are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the >>>>>>> flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there is >>>>>>>> "the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins.Some animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the >>>>>>>>>> universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing >>>>>>>>>> this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no >>>>>>>>> evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons
of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could
not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative >>>>>>>>> genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were
present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the
precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence.
Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory >>>>>>>> and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes >>>>>>> to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever
reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people >>>>>>> that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences >>>>>>> between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times >>>>>>> faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them >>>>>>> elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Seat belts were invented for gliders, but are now used also in
automobiles, airplanes, some roller coasters, and probably elsewhere. >>>>>
Zippers are used on pants, jackets, boots, suitcases, tents, upholstery, >>>>> sleeping bags, and umbrella cases, to name just the few uses that come >>>>> immediately to mind.
Do I even need to mention transistors and screws?
Design is done inWhere would one look for a drawing board or models?
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved. >>>>>>> None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not >>>>>>> look designed.
Personal archives. Junk yards. Neglected corporate storage facilities. >>>>> Dumpsters.
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
I don't understand the relevance. Models are not simply reproductions. >>>>>
It would seem from the very beginning, even before
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source? And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
That drive started right after the Big Bang (if not sooner). The
formation of atoms, molecules, stars, and planets all show a drive
pushing to greater complexity. Some have suggested it is a law of
thermodynamics. As for its source, my knowledge of statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics is not sufficient to provide an answer. >>>>>
Actually information with a driving force creates increasing order and >>>> complexity. Random unguided thermo tends towards disorder and
chaos.
That is not true, or at least, it does not take more than a trivial
amount of information to produce order. What matters is not
information, but a flow of energy.
produces no order.
You haven't seen many lava flows.
A tornado is undirected flowing energy which produces no order
In fact. I think to produce order there has to be energy with
some guiding force; or constraint; or barier.
A tornado *is* order, relative to blustery wind currents.
Such flows of energy produce a lotYour pan of boiling water, is not quite the same, in that the eye of the
of entropy, but patterns of increasing order seem always to appear in
the midst. The classic example is a pan of water on a burner. This
does not produce chaos (or at least, not right away); rather, a regular
pattern of convection cells appears. It's almost like Entropy knows
what is necessary to create more of it, and then it does so, even if
that requires creating pockets of order in the process. Life, for all
the order contained within it, is an entropy-increasing device.
stove is directed energy, even though not intelligent. But after all
intelligent is in effect a guiding force.
Life is not random, in that DNA provides information. Once a body
dies, decay sets in which is the result of the loss of information.
So are stars. The creation of a star does not require much information, >>> just a local increase in density of a cloud. From that, increasingThe creation of stars is caused by gravity.
order and complexity arise spontaneously. But notwithstanding all that
order, the net result is much faster increases in entropy.
Entropy is a factor of the second law of thermodynamics. The
(Also, please note that "entropy", "disorder", and "chaos" have distinct >>> and different meanings. For sake of communication, please respect those >>> meanings.)
increase of entropy over time results in disorder, but there are
circumstances where there is a decrease of entropy leading
to order. Directed energy is the cause of decreasing entropy.
Take it up with Nobel-prize winning physicists, who you are disagree with.
On 1/7/23 5:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >> negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution.
Ignoring the fact that complex life did not come suddenly during the
Cambrian . . .
Suppose the police come upon a scene with four bodies, each shot in the
head execution-style. A gun consistent with the wounds is found several yards away. The police are without any evident suspects. By your
reasoning, this single fact effectively falsifies the conclusion that
those bodies were murdered.
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>>>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>>>>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of >>>> course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that >>>> there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent >>>> evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like >>>> that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for >>>> identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the >>>> paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where >>>> your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and
complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an
intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >>> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that >>> spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >>> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no >>> other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no >>> intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other >> than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue. >>
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify >> design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer. >> That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because we >> know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars,I've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two possible explanations.
computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains,
rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it >> would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria >> to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are >> not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific >> designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if >> they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some
things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g. >> mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long
periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that
criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does >> not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much
nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails, >> too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown >> that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they >> were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can >> be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum, >> the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc).
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to >>>>>> do with design?
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believ regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>>>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not >>> watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 7, 2023 at 10:54:41 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:11:44 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not >>> address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>>>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>>>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>>
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
You wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "computer code" is counterexample, as it's almost never
conserved, yet you agree is designed. Since even I understand this,
there's no good reason why you don't.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic >>>> criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives. >>>> It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>>> of cases, and beats chance.No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
than computer history.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >>> negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution. >>
Your comments above imply you have evidence which shows Ediacaran
biota are *not* ancestral to Cambrian biota. Yet you specify none.
Why is that? If you have no evidence, this would be another case of
basing your conclusions on a lack of evidence aka GOTG.
It's not my place to prove a negative.
IIUC your comments above imply you think unless ancestry can beOne of the most important aspect of compound life is: how did it get started?. >It's the beginning of all complex animal life. If this is unresolved, then >it's pointless to try proving further evolutionary changes. That should be >first.
proved, then the most parsimonious explanation is created kinds which
falsifies evolution. If so, how do reconcile this with your repeated
refutation of spontaneous generation? If not, then how does "this
single fact" falsify evolution?
You think fully functional simply means capable of reproduction and nothing >more?But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highlyNot just highly concerned [conserved?], but also fully functional from the >>> very first
conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>>> be the case.
evidence of their existence.
You keep using that phrase "fully functional". ISTM any living
organism which reproduces itself is by definition "fully functional".
So what you mean by that phrase?
Mountains are caused by volcanoes, continental drift, also they change- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed. Besides mountains
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern >>>> across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and >>>> b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and >>>> knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now >>>> needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
are know to change.
Once again, you wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "mountains" is counterexample, as they are universal yet
you agree are *not* designed. Since even I understand this, there's
no good reason why you don't.
by arising from sea floors, in some cases, and wear away, not in our >liferime, but they do not remain constant or concerned.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are >>>> rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to >>>> environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so >>>> than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and thatNo change was only one part.
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>>> gave for "being designed"
Review what you wrote and reconcile that with Burkhard's
counterexamples.
The better of two options.With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>>>>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, >>>> abrupt appearance and then stability?
That's your *opinion" without basis. Do you understand what
"evidence" means?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from >>>> that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything >>>> points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - >>>> flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the >>>> time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities. >>>> Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another >>>> 50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies >>>> of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of >>>> people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for >>>> a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor, >>>> but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small >>>> people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain >>>> that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were >>>> Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots >>>> of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of
documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from >>>> the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what
language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what >>>> ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any >>>> physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they >>>> were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces >>>> of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples >>>> heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much >>>> higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that >>>> the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets
destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck >>>> is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify >>>> traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to >>>> reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again >>>> we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better >>>> analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian >>>> explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of >>>> earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are >>>> asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there >>>> is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the >>>> phyla at least remain fixed?
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>>
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it. >>>> There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest
surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from >>>> as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have >>>> so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially >>>> the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >>>> in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again >>>> unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain >>>> controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to >>>> drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >>>> A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan >>>> evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >>>> what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with >>>> other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely >>>> zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level >>>> of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build >>>> on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for >>>> innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then >>>> "break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water. >>>> With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body >>>> plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or >>>> even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for >>>> it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>>>>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:33:08 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Surely, you realize that it's virtually impossible to override one's paradigm.
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>>>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that >>>>>> they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of >>>> course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that >>>> there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent >>>> evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like >>>> that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for >>>> identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the >>>> paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where >>>> your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and
complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an
intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >>> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that >>> spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >>> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no >>> other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no >>> intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would
still be based on the available evidence.
And in this case. no intelligence ever greater than the spider monkey is
the paradigm.
Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least notFrequently, I've post our that I think that design is the better of two >explanations for what has been observed.
the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for
everything except design.
And since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".That's an alternative, but there's usually the refusal to accept what one >observes is reality, that is, if it conflicts with one's paradigm
On Jan 7, 2023 at 10:54:41 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:11:44 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not >>> address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>>>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>>>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>>
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
You wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "computer code" is counterexample, as it's almost never
conserved, yet you agree is designed. Since even I understand this,
there's no good reason why you don't.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic >>>> criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives. >>>> It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>>> of cases, and beats chance.No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
than computer history.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >>> negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution. >>
Your comments above imply you have evidence which shows Ediacaran
biota are *not* ancestral to Cambrian biota. Yet you specify none.
Why is that? If you have no evidence, this would be another case of
basing your conclusions on a lack of evidence aka GOTG.
It's not my place to prove a negative.
One of the most important aspect of compound life is: how did it get started?.
IIUC your comments above imply you think unless ancestry can be
proved, then the most parsimonious explanation is created kinds which
falsifies evolution. If so, how do reconcile this with your repeated
refutation of spontaneous generation? If not, then how does "this
single fact" falsify evolution?
It's the beginning of all complex animal life. If this is unresolved, then it's pointless to try proving further evolutionary changes. That should be first.
You think fully functional simply means capable of reproduction and nothing more?
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highlyNot just highly concerned [conserved?], but also fully functional from the >>> very first
conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>>> be the case.
evidence of their existence.
You keep using that phrase "fully functional". ISTM any living
organism which reproduces itself is by definition "fully functional".
So what you mean by that phrase?
Mountains are caused by volcanoes, continental drift, also they change
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed. Besides mountains
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern >>>> across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and >>>> b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and >>>> knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now >>>> needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
are know to change.
Once again, you wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "mountains" is counterexample, as they are universal yet
you agree are *not* designed. Since even I understand this, there's
no good reason why you don't.
by arising from sea floors, in some cases, and wear away, not in our liferime, but they do not remain constant or concerned.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are >>>> rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to >>>> environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so >>>> than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and thatNo change was only one part.
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>>> gave for "being designed"
Review what you wrote and reconcile that with Burkhard's
counterexamples.
The better of two options.With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>>>>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, >>>> abrupt appearance and then stability?
That's your *opinion" without basis. Do you understand what
"evidence" means?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from >>>> that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything >>>> points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - >>>> flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the >>>> time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities. >>>> Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another >>>> 50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies >>>> of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of >>>> people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for >>>> a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor, >>>> but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small >>>> people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain >>>> that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were >>>> Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots >>>> of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of
documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from >>>> the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what
language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what >>>> ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any >>>> physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they >>>> were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces >>>> of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples >>>> heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much >>>> higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that >>>> the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets
destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck >>>> is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify >>>> traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to >>>> reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again >>>> we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better >>>> analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian >>>> explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of >>>> earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are >>>> asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there >>>> is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the >>>> phyla at least remain fixed?
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>>
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it. >>>> There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest
surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from >>>> as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have >>>> so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially >>>> the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >>>> in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again >>>> unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain >>>> controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to >>>> drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >>>> A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan >>>> evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >>>> what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with >>>> other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely >>>> zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level >>>> of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build >>>> on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for >>>> innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then >>>> "break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water. >>>> With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body >>>> plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right,
(as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or >>>> even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for >>>> it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a >>>>>> similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the
conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:29:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 02:26:05 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>This may be valid, but it's an excuse!
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 8:30:46 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>But the fact remains compound animals appeared comparatively abruptly
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit fliesEvidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who >>>>>>>> mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for >>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many >>>>>>>> different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for
purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your
expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in >>>>>>>> reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on >>>>>>>> me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous. >>>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views >>>>>>> in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say >>>>>>>> "It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning >>>>>>>> to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims...
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox >>>>>> genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by >>>>>> unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion >>>>>> could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have
happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question. >>>>>> You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless >>>>>> claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after >>>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the >>>>>> Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare
facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >>>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor. >>>>> There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute. As I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution.
That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For >>>> someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail,
you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the >>>> dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim
is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's
not an explanation.
in the strata of the Cambrian without being preceded by intermediates
back to a common ancestor. Maybe this does not prove design, but
it effectively discounts evolution, except through_faith_ that there must >>> been intermediates previously.
preceding
Once again, you assert a false equivalence. The *plausibility* of
ancestral forms of Cambrian organisms is based on hard evidence of the
existence of prior Ediacaran forms. I acknowledge there is
insufficient evidence to *prove* that ancestry. However, that lack
*plausibly* explained by the nature of taphonomy, that fossils are at
best spotty recordings of events in time, and that Ediacaran and
Cambrian fossils from over half a billion years ago are necessarily
among the rarest of rare fossils.
IIUC your argument above is to substitute design for evolution, toNo, I understand, but for the sake of argument: there is direct empirical >evidence here for both evolution or design.
claim the *plausiblity* that Cambrian forms were designed. At the
same time, you reject the *plausibility* that Ediacaran organisms are
intermediate to Cambrian forms, based on an admitted lack of evidence
for design. This shows you misunderstand what can logically inferred
from a lack of evidence.
Here one's paradigm takes control and dictates the conclusions.
I suspect atheism is your paradigm: am I wrong?
Worse, your argument above implies that *any* organism lacking *proof*
of ancestry can reasonably be presumed to have been not just designed,
but spontaneously created aka ex nihilo. For someone who has
repeatedly denied spontaneous generation, this is a remarkable
argument for you to make.
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and
complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer. That's not an unreasonable goal.
I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
that does not rule out its existence.
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because we
know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars, computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains, rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it
would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific
designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if
they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g. mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does
not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they
were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc).
I've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two possible explanations.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Jan 7, 2023 at 10:51:53 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/23 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Rather than throwing names of authorities around explain the main points
On Jan 7, 2023 at 9:37:30 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:30 PM, jillery wrote:There seems to be some controversy here, I read from 13 million years
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit fliesEvidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who >>>>>>>>> mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for >>>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many >>>>>>>>> different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for >>>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your >>>>>>>>> expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous. >>>>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views >>>>>>>> in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox >>>>>>> genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by >>>>>>> unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion >>>>>>> could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have >>>>>>> happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question. >>>>>>> You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless >>>>>>> claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after >>>>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the >>>>>>> Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare >>>>>>> facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >>>>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor.
There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
5 to 19 million years. So, who do I trust. I tene to trust the encyclopedia >>> britannica more that names I don't know. No reflection meant on you.
Jim Valentine and Doug Erwin happen to be two of the foremost
invertebrate paleontologists in the world. Perhaps the fact that they're
names you don't know says more about your competence than theirs.
the make.
Are you claiming the shelly fauna and ichnofossils are Kimberella andOk how can one know that the Edicaran or the early Cambrian eras hadAs I
stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution. >>>>> That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For >>>>> someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail, >>>>> you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the >>>>> dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim >>>>> is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's >>>>> not an explanation.
transitional fossils? There is no evidence. except for evolution to be a >>> reaityl there had to have been. In the final analysis history is written in >>> the rocks.
Once again, the small shelly fauna and the ichnofossil record are
exactly the evidence you claim doesn't exist,
Namacalathus and Cloudina. Erwin & Valentine should be available in any
decent university library. If nothing else, you should be able to get it
by interlibrary loan. The first step in repairing your ignorance,
however, is to realize that it needs repair.
The point I've been trying to make is that the complex compound animals
that appeared during the Cambrian had no known ancestors leading back
to a common ancestors. Are you claiming the shelly fauna, Ichnofossils
and Kimberella are the transitional fossils on the path to a common ancestor. of the animals that appeared during the Cambrian? If so, how do you know this, if not why then bring these forms into the discussion/
Yes, they're transitional fossils. Of course we can't say that they're directly ancestral to anything, because there's no way to distinguish ancestors from the cousins of ancestors. But they're definitely
transitional, and in fact both the ichnofossils and the small shellies increase in variety and complexity from the latest Ediacaran through
Cambrian Stage 3. Furthere, they tell us that the sudden appearance of trilobites and the Chengjiang fauna is an artifact of preservation,
because we have no well-preserved body fossils of the organisms that
made the ichnofossils. This simply refutes Meyer's claim that the fossil record is complete, and that if these ancestors existed we should have
seen them. Taphonomy is another subject on which both you and he are ignorant.
No, I understand, but for the sake of argument: there is direct empirical evidence here for both evolution or design.
Here one's paradigm takes
control and dictates the conclusions. I suspect atheism is your paradigm:
am I wrong?
Once again, the small shelly fauna and the ichnofossil record are
exactly the evidence you claim doesn't exist, as are Kimberella and Namacalathus and Cloudina. Erwin & Valentine should be available in any decent university library. If nothing else, you should be able to get it
by interlibrary loan. The first step in repairing your ignorance,
however, is to realize that it needs repair.
The problem, as I see it, is the absence of transitional fossils between the huge number of animals that first appeared during the Cambrian, back to a common ancestror.
Evolutionist have ignored or tried to explain away this absence. But to me, this is a sword in the heart of evolution.
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:19:11 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/7/23 7:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:True, but it has a reputation and one to uphold.
On Jan 7, 2023 at 9:37:30 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
There seems to be some controversy here, I read from 13 million yearsOnce again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute.
Yes it is, unless you think that 25 million years counts as
"geologically abrupt". I suggest that everyone commenting on this
question read Valentine and Erwin's "The Cambrian Explosion".
5 to 19 million years. So, who do I trust. I tene to trust the encyclopedia >>> britannica more that names I don't know. No reflection meant on you.
Um, Encyclopaedia Britannica was written by people whose names you don't
know.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
What about _Cambrian ocean world : ancient sea life of North America_ by
Once again, the small shelly fauna and the ichnofossil record are
exactly the evidence you claim doesn't exist, as are Kimberella and
Namacalathus and Cloudina. Erwin & Valentine should be available in any
decent university library. If nothing else, you should be able to get it
by interlibrary loan. The first step in repairing your ignorance,
however, is to realize that it needs repair.
John Foster? Perhaps not as good as Erwin and Valentine but much more
easily obtained. Has a cheaper Kindle version: https://www.amazon.com/Cambrian-Ocean-World-Ancient-America/dp/0253011825
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foster_(paleontologist)
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:38:21 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/7/23 5:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >>> negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the CambriaIgnoring the fact that complex life did not come suddenly during the
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution. >>
Cambrian . . .
Suppose the police come upon a scene with four bodies, each shot in the
head execution-style. A gun consistent with the wounds is found several
yards away. The police are without any evident suspects. By your
reasoning, this single fact effectively falsifies the conclusion that
those bodies were murdered.
No, this is not equivelant. Besides, I do not consider a single fact is that which fully
qualifies a conclusion.
The homeobox gene for example:
I-i they are extremely ancient, possibly causing the Cambrian explosion
2- essentially fully functional, unchanged from their beginning
and the beginning of compound animals in their earliest forms.
3- It's universal in that these genes control downstream genes
in all animals, in the animal kingdom; including the formation of
body forms, parts organs, limbs etc..
This I believe ia a remarkable and elegant form of "forward" planning
and engineering.
Whether by random, mindless, unguided forces of nature or by deliberate, purposeful design.
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41:21 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/7/23 7:05 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Explain where I'm wrong
On Jan 7, 2023 at 12:11:48 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:48 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not true, an lava flow from an erupting volcano is undirected and
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:54:02 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Thermodynamics without information has the exact opposite effect.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 11:31:31 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/3/23 11:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Please provide examples of this.
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:04:22 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
[...]
I think the odds are extremely unlikely that any 2 beneficial co-corporative
Something else just occurred to me. That is, there would have to be multiple
co-evolutionary beneficial mutations symontaneously and "aimed" towards
acheiving the same end. When very few mutations are beneficial and harmful
mutations are weeded out, there is extremely low chance for >>>>>>>>>>> beneficial co-orporative mutations to occur at the same time with the same
"end". In the case of the eye, this would require co-orporative increases
in information to be convert light into electrical signals, requiting pupil,
iris , lens and other eye parts, optic nerves which carry signals to the brain
that can interpret the signal and provide mental image of what is observed.
How many co-orporative mutations or new information would be required for the
eye to form the multiple biological systems needed. I think to >>>>>>>>>>> believe this just happened by naturalistic means requires a great deal of
faith and trust in the words of other human beings.
You are assuming that many mutations would need to occur simultaneously.
There is no evidence for this, at least not in the vast majority of
cases.
mutations could occur at the sme time. But I think muttations here is not
right:
rather new information is needed.
What if one of the beneficial mutations does not cause fatal damage? It
occurs, stays around in the population awhile, and sometime later the >>>>>>>> second beneficial mutation occurs. Now you have two cooperative >>>>>>>> mutations, and the odds of it happening are pretty high.
Also, almost all mutations are new mutations in the Shannon sense, and >>>>>>>> selected mutations are new information in almost any sense. New >>>>>>>> information is not in shortage.
A cell which can react to light in some way can have advantage >>>>>>>>>> over one that can't. The same cell which can then send a signal to >>>>>>>>>> another cell has (potentially) further advantage. Then there can be >>>>>>>>>> endless modifications about how signals are sent and arranged. None ofBut the problem is how and when could this have happened. Compound >>>>>>>>> eyes were found to already exist during the beginning of the cambrian >>>>>>>>> in trilobites and other phyla including predators. This is observed is
it needs to be done at once. Research into optical illusions shows that
the job is not done yet.
real and fact. The origin is not observed, so this is subject the theories
hypothesis and educated guesswork.
So the answer is "I don't know". There were more than half a billion >>>>>>>> years before the Cambrian when eyes could have been developing, and we >>>>>>>> have absolutely no reason to believe they weren't, even if we don't know
the details. So why do you consider "I don't know" a problem? Is it >>>>>>>> simply because "I don't know" is very different from your preferred "a >>>>>>>> miracle occurred"?
And if the designer *could* create multiple simultaneous mutations toI don't know, I can only guess. But you mentioned the flagellum, It seems
further a function, then where are wheels? For wheels, there likely is
no gradual evolutionary path, but it should be no problem for a designer
to create an organism that can grow detachable disks (much as fish grow
scales) and then stick them on axles when the disks are grown. But the
only things that are close to wheels in nature are subcellular, such as
the flagellum rotor, or entire organism, such as tumbleweed. >>>>>>>>>>
that all parts had to be present and functioning otherwise natural selection
should have eliminated it. The point is beneficial mutations ar so rare and
most mutations by far are disastrous. So, there is nothing setting around with
a hatchet to cut off defective mutations. Unfortunately defective mutations
are not that rare and are persistant. I have cousins twins born with serious
genetic problems.
Not true. Scenarios have been suggested for gradual evolution of the >>>>>>>> flagellum.
a,b) Design is evidence of design the eye seems designed, there is >>>>>>>>> "the appearence of design" and "the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins.Some animals: trailobites and preditors at the time of the Cambrian explosion
had complex compound eyes like modern insects such as dragon flies and honey
bees. When did the eye evolve and
where is the evidence depicting how and when did the eye and the >>>>>>>>>>> universal Pax6 eye gene evolved? Since, there is no evidence showing
this; why is design ruled out as a possible explanation?
Design is not ruled out. It is discounted because (a) there is no >>>>>>>>>> evidence of a designer; (b) they do not look designed; (c) there is tons
of evidence for evolution; (d) there is no evidence that evolution could
not account for them; and (e) there is the evidence of comparative >>>>>>>>>> genetics that evolution *did* account for them.
So, it's Dawkin's paradigm that rules out actual design. c) Since eyes were
present in the early cambrian they would have had to have evolved in the
precambrian. d) But there is absolutely no evidence of eye evolution in
that era or is there any evidence of complex multiple celular animals in that
era. e) Here again one's paradigm rules one's intrepretation of evidence.
Here again we have observation and fact, then non-observation, theory >>>>>>>>> and educated guesswork.
Design and evolution use similar processes: Both work by making changes
to existing forms, discarding those changes that don't work for whatever
reasons, and keeping those that do. So it should not surprise people >>>>>>>> that life, in some ways, looks designed. But there are differences >>>>>>>> between design and evolution, too. Design works about 100,000 times >>>>>>>> faster. Design takes parts used in one lineage and applies them >>>>>>>> elsewhere, even on completely different products.
Seat belts were invented for gliders, but are now used also in
automobiles, airplanes, some roller coasters, and probably elsewhere. >>>>>>
Zippers are used on pants, jackets, boots, suitcases, tents, upholstery, >>>>>> sleeping bags, and umbrella cases, to name just the few uses that come >>>>>> immediately to mind.
Do I even need to mention transistors and screws?
Design is done inWhere would one look for a drawing board or models?
part on drawing boards and with models, which can also get preserved. >>>>>>>> None of those show up in life. All things considered, life does not >>>>>>>> look designed.
Personal archives. Junk yards. Neglected corporate storage facilities. >>>>>> Dumpsters.
Do you not think reproduction looks designed?
I don't understand the relevance. Models are not simply reproductions. >>>>>>
It would seem from the very beginning, even before
inorganic molecules appeared there would have to be
a "drive" pushing complexity upwards towards life.
What is the drive and what is it's source? And would not
this drive is necessary for pushing simple forms, from the
first single cell ever, to higher, greater and more complex
life forms? Just a thought!
That drive started right after the Big Bang (if not sooner). The
formation of atoms, molecules, stars, and planets all show a drive >>>>>> pushing to greater complexity. Some have suggested it is a law of >>>>>> thermodynamics. As for its source, my knowledge of statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics is not sufficient to provide an answer. >>>>>>
Actually information with a driving force creates increasing order and >>>>> complexity. Random unguided thermo tends towards disorder and
chaos.
That is not true, or at least, it does not take more than a trivial
amount of information to produce order. What matters is not
information, but a flow of energy.
produces no order.
You haven't seen many lava flows.
A tornado is undirected flowing energy which produces no order
In fact. I think to produce order there has to be energy with
some guiding force; or constraint; or barier.
A tornado *is* order, relative to blustery wind currents.
Such flows of energy produce a lotYour pan of boiling water, is not quite the same, in that the eye of the >>> stove is directed energy, even though not intelligent. But after all
of entropy, but patterns of increasing order seem always to appear in
the midst. The classic example is a pan of water on a burner. This
does not produce chaos (or at least, not right away); rather, a regular >>>> pattern of convection cells appears. It's almost like Entropy knows
what is necessary to create more of it, and then it does so, even if
that requires creating pockets of order in the process. Life, for all >>>> the order contained within it, is an entropy-increasing device.
intelligent is in effect a guiding force.
Life is not random, in that DNA provides information. Once a body
dies, decay sets in which is the result of the loss of information.
So are stars. The creation of a star does not require much information, >>>> just a local increase in density of a cloud. From that, increasingThe creation of stars is caused by gravity.
order and complexity arise spontaneously. But notwithstanding all that >>>> order, the net result is much faster increases in entropy.
Entropy is a factor of the second law of thermodynamics. The
(Also, please note that "entropy", "disorder", and "chaos" have distinct >>>> and different meanings. For sake of communication, please respect those >>>> meanings.)
increase of entropy over time results in disorder, but there are
circumstances where there is a decrease of entropy leading
to order. Directed energy is the cause of decreasing entropy.
Take it up with Nobel-prize winning physicists, who you are disagree with.
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>> intelligence
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>>>>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent >>>>> evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>>>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the >>>>> paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >>>> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >>>> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue. >>>
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify >>> design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer. >>> That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
Of course we do. The first parts of the wall were build from th 7th
century BC onward, during the Spring and Autumn period by the states of
Qin, Wei, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, and Zhongshan. These were not joint
together in one great wall, but merely protected local points of
strategic interest, and defended against the other kingdoms as much as against outsiders, which can be seen from the orientation of the walls.
Some of those stretches that protected against outsiders were then
connected by Qin Shi Huang from 220 BC onward. This then became the foundations of what we think of as the great wall, and successive
dynasties then built on it, either by extending it, or by
repairing/upgrading existing walls. The parts you typically see in
tourist photos are generally built in the Ming dynasty.
So far from not knowing who the designers were, we can identify
different parts of the walls with different designers, because we know
about the different technological abilities that they had acquired over
time (and we find the corresponding tool traces and differences in
materials in the wall) , and we know their different motives and
objectives, which explains the direction and location of the wall
stretches they built etc. The Ming section e.g. used stones and bricks
while older sections are merely rammed earth, an improvement that
corresponds to their greater technological knowledge (invention of the
kiln e.g.) and much greater resources, and it also corresponds to a new threat, the Mongols, which is why the wall is strongest near Beijing,
because that had become the capital at the time.
We have estimates how may people died building the wall (hundreds of thousands). We have records on how conscripts were detailed for the
work, and how more skilled workers were recruited and paid. We have
building tools from that time, and we know how they used Sticky rice
mortar, (rice soup and slaked lime) to bind the bricks. Towers are
positioned so that signals could be send to them by line of sight, which again tells you about the builders, their biology (range and use of
visual perception) and technology.
Read any academic study of the great wall, such as Peter Lum's The
Purple Barrier, or Robert Silverberg's The Long Rampart or Arthur
Waldron's The Great Wall of China : from history to myth, and you find
all the ingredients for a proper design-based theories:
- some traits of the wall are explained by the shifting motives and intentions of the designer, explanations of the form "This part of the
wall was build at this position because the designer was concerned about
X" - with independent evidence that the designer was, indeed, concerned
about X. A typical example is a planning document by Prime Minister, Kao
Lu (from ca. 502) that outlined his arguments in favor of the "five
benefits of long walls.
- some traits of the wall are explained by the technology available (or unavailable) to the designer "this part of the wall has a foundation of roughly hewn stone, while the rest is bricks. This is because the
limited road work made transport of stones difficult, which is why even though they are as a material better suited, bricks which could be build
on site are more often used.
- over time, studies of the great wall have taught us more about the designer, we now know much more about them than even 20 years ago. In particular we have become much better to assign stretches of wall to individual rulers or high ranking civil servants. We have also learned
more about the shifting relations between the nomads and the settled population.
Now show me any, or ideally all, of these with ID design "theories", and
we are cooking: explain a given trait of a species by the motives and
tools of the designer (independently evidenced), and how our knowledge
of the designer has improved in the last decades by analyzing the
objects of their design
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because we >>> know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars, >>> computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lotsI've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains, >>> rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it >>> would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific >>> designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if >>> they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some >>> things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g. >>> mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long >>> periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that
criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does >>> not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much >>> nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they >>> were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc).
possible explanations.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to >>>>>>> do with design?
On Jan 9, 2023 at 4:41:38 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:<snip lots of older stuff>
Ron Dean wrote:
.....................................And you "should" argue that the Moon is designed, because it appeared suddenly, without precursor. That is the criterion of design that you propose.
Sudden appearance is only one of the criteria that I used in the case of homeobox genes.
So if, as is of course very sensible, you argue that the moon is not designed, then you have to drop your criterion for design - "sudden appearance" obviously is not connected to design
Here again, not just one criterion.
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>>>>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not >>>> watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that
abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>>>>>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not >>>>> watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions ofThere's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that
abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
is atheism!
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
..................................................I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I think you are playing games with me!
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence >>>>>>> of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some
millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not >>>>> watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that
abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
is atheism!
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 4:36:49 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are a good source of information. I appreciate you!
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>> intelligence
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>>>>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >>>>> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >>>>> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify >>>> design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer. >>>> That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
Of course we do. The first parts of the wall were build from th 7th
century BC onward, during the Spring and Autumn period by the states of
Qin, Wei, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, and Zhongshan. These were not joint
together in one great wall, but merely protected local points of
strategic interest, and defended against the other kingdoms as much as
against outsiders, which can be seen from the orientation of the walls.
Some of those stretches that protected against outsiders were then
connected by Qin Shi Huang from 220 BC onward. This then became the
foundations of what we think of as the great wall, and successive
dynasties then built on it, either by extending it, or by
repairing/upgrading existing walls. The parts you typically see in
tourist photos are generally built in the Ming dynasty.
So far from not knowing who the designers were, we can identify
different parts of the walls with different designers, because we know
about the different technological abilities that they had acquired over
time (and we find the corresponding tool traces and differences in
materials in the wall) , and we know their different motives and
objectives, which explains the direction and location of the wall
stretches they built etc. The Ming section e.g. used stones and bricks
while older sections are merely rammed earth, an improvement that
corresponds to their greater technological knowledge (invention of the
kiln e.g.) and much greater resources, and it also corresponds to a new
threat, the Mongols, which is why the wall is strongest near Beijing,
because that had become the capital at the time.
We have estimates how may people died building the wall (hundreds of
thousands). We have records on how conscripts were detailed for the
work, and how more skilled workers were recruited and paid. We have
building tools from that time, and we know how they used Sticky rice
mortar, (rice soup and slaked lime) to bind the bricks. Towers are
positioned so that signals could be send to them by line of sight, which
again tells you about the builders, their biology (range and use of
visual perception) and technology.
Read any academic study of the great wall, such as Peter Lum's The
Purple Barrier, or Robert Silverberg's The Long Rampart or Arthur
Waldron's The Great Wall of China : from history to myth, and you find
all the ingredients for a proper design-based theories:
- some traits of the wall are explained by the shifting motives and
intentions of the designer, explanations of the form "This part of the
wall was build at this position because the designer was concerned about
X" - with independent evidence that the designer was, indeed, concerned
about X. A typical example is a planning document by Prime Minister, Kao
Lu (from ca. 502) that outlined his arguments in favor of the "five
benefits of long walls.
- some traits of the wall are explained by the technology available (or
unavailable) to the designer "this part of the wall has a foundation of
roughly hewn stone, while the rest is bricks. This is because the
limited road work made transport of stones difficult, which is why even
though they are as a material better suited, bricks which could be build
on site are more often used.
- over time, studies of the great wall have taught us more about the
designer, we now know much more about them than even 20 years ago. In
particular we have become much better to assign stretches of wall to
individual rulers or high ranking civil servants. We have also learned
more about the shifting relations between the nomads and the settled
population.
Now show me any, or ideally all, of these with ID design "theories", and
we are cooking: explain a given trait of a species by the motives and
tools of the designer (independently evidenced), and how our knowledge
of the designer has improved in the last decades by analyzing the
objects of their design
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because weI've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two >>> possible explanations.
know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars, >>>> computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains, >>>> rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it
would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific
designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if
they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some >>>> things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g. >>>> mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long >>>> periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that >>>> criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does
not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much >>>> nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they
were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc).
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with considerable scientific expertise?
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>>> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that
abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question of God is separate from the question of design.
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers, cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed. While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus non-designed things.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 4:36:49 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are a good source of information. I appreciate you!
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>>> intelligence
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>>>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>>>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>>>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify
design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer.
That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
Of course we do. The first parts of the wall were build from th 7th
century BC onward, during the Spring and Autumn period by the states of
Qin, Wei, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, and Zhongshan. These were not joint
together in one great wall, but merely protected local points of
strategic interest, and defended against the other kingdoms as much as
against outsiders, which can be seen from the orientation of the walls.
Some of those stretches that protected against outsiders were then
connected by Qin Shi Huang from 220 BC onward. This then became the
foundations of what we think of as the great wall, and successive
dynasties then built on it, either by extending it, or by
repairing/upgrading existing walls. The parts you typically see in
tourist photos are generally built in the Ming dynasty.
So far from not knowing who the designers were, we can identify
different parts of the walls with different designers, because we know
about the different technological abilities that they had acquired over
time (and we find the corresponding tool traces and differences in
materials in the wall) , and we know their different motives and
objectives, which explains the direction and location of the wall
stretches they built etc. The Ming section e.g. used stones and bricks
while older sections are merely rammed earth, an improvement that
corresponds to their greater technological knowledge (invention of the
kiln e.g.) and much greater resources, and it also corresponds to a new >>> threat, the Mongols, which is why the wall is strongest near Beijing,
because that had become the capital at the time.
We have estimates how may people died building the wall (hundreds of
thousands). We have records on how conscripts were detailed for the
work, and how more skilled workers were recruited and paid. We have
building tools from that time, and we know how they used Sticky rice
mortar, (rice soup and slaked lime) to bind the bricks. Towers are
positioned so that signals could be send to them by line of sight, which >>> again tells you about the builders, their biology (range and use of
visual perception) and technology.
Read any academic study of the great wall, such as Peter Lum's The
Purple Barrier, or Robert Silverberg's The Long Rampart or Arthur
Waldron's The Great Wall of China : from history to myth, and you find
all the ingredients for a proper design-based theories:
- some traits of the wall are explained by the shifting motives and
intentions of the designer, explanations of the form "This part of the
wall was build at this position because the designer was concerned about >>> X" - with independent evidence that the designer was, indeed, concerned
about X. A typical example is a planning document by Prime Minister, Kao >>> Lu (from ca. 502) that outlined his arguments in favor of the "five
benefits of long walls.
- some traits of the wall are explained by the technology available (or
unavailable) to the designer "this part of the wall has a foundation of
roughly hewn stone, while the rest is bricks. This is because the
limited road work made transport of stones difficult, which is why even
though they are as a material better suited, bricks which could be build >>> on site are more often used.
- over time, studies of the great wall have taught us more about the
designer, we now know much more about them than even 20 years ago. In
particular we have become much better to assign stretches of wall to
individual rulers or high ranking civil servants. We have also learned
more about the shifting relations between the nomads and the settled
population.
Now show me any, or ideally all, of these with ID design "theories", and >>> we are cooking: explain a given trait of a species by the motives and
tools of the designer (independently evidenced), and how our knowledge
of the designer has improved in the last decades by analyzing the
objects of their design
Thanks! :o)
There is by the way another lesson to be learned from the great wall,
or rather its study, that is sort of relevant for our discussion. Only
around a quarter of the Ming Wall still exists. The photos that you
normally see, and which shape most people's impression of what the great
wall is, are from these 25% or so. That lead to widespread
misconceptions, which until the early 20th century also dominated
academia.
In this vision, the Wall was one big entity, that was build "from
scratch", as a singular engineering feast, and marked a shift in the
wider political stance: from one of expansion towards a defensive stance against nomad populations.
But that overlooks that the preservation of the Wall was heavily biased towards the most solid sections, build with the most lasting materials -
and that often also meant a) the relatively younger parts and b) the strategically most important ones.
The reality was therefore much more mixed - older, much simpler walls
made from pressed earth and/or wood were getting linked up, or sometimes reinforced. Sometimes there were substantive gaps (mainly a string of watchtowers only), often incorporating natural features such as rivers
and mountains. (there is this popular myth that the wall can be seen
from the moon - well, if you count rivers and mountains as part of the
wall, maybe, but not the brick-and-mortar wall) To confuse matters even
more, there is a much younger wall, the "willow palisade wall" of which
even less remains: simply because it consists simply of willows, planted closely together and their branches then connected with some material.
They extended the "brick and mortar" walls long after these had stopped
doing their job (due to location, mainly)
Maybe you see where I'm going with this: If we only had the
archeological evidence to guide us, it would look as if the walls
suddenly appeared, in a very sophisticated form, and then equally
suddenly disappeared. Sounds familiar? But this is just an artefact of
the way in which the environment "sampled" the wall - the older, more primitive precursors on which it was build simply disappeared without
leaving (much of a) trace, precisely because they were more simple, less structured and sophisticated. How do we know they were there? Partly
because of sheer luck - some written accounts were discovered that were
older than the previous documentation. And our methods also got better,
in particular aerial archeology now allows us to identify disruptions in
the landscape from human activity that were previously impossible.
You can transfer this easily to the Cambrian explosion ("the Ming Wall",
in the analogy): The simper an ancestor, the less likely it is to be preserved. And whether or not we can find any depends a) on luck
(looking at the right place, was with the documents) and also
potentially the technology available to us. "Absence of ancestral structures", in both cases, can simply mean either a) none of them were preserved, but this is as to be expected because they were, by
definition, simpler; or b) have been preserved by at places we haven't
looked at yet or c) have been preserved, but we don't have the equipment
to see them (yet). What it does not allow is the inference that they did
not exist.
The other lesson links the wall story to your monkey example. What of an alien who knows nothing about humans finds the same evidence of the
Walls as we have? Well, if they are similar enough to us, they may
correctly identify the concept of a wall. But they could then as well
infer that the rivers and mountains were also made by the same
architects - without knowing who they were and what their abilities was,
no way to tell the difference, they both serve the same purpose.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/softbodied-fossils-from-the-shipai-formation-lower-cambrian-of-the-three-gorge-area-south-china/D936E93438D014254EE56349B07FE3E8
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because weI've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two >>>> possible explanations.
know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars, >>>>> computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains, >>>>> rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it
would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific
designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if
they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some >>>>> things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g.
mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long >>>>> periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that >>>>> criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does
not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much >>>>> nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they
were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc).
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
On Jan 12, 2023 at 1:04:13 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: [...]
The fact remains thare are no accepted transitional fossils in the PreCambrian(Edcarian era). What what you offer is attempted
You can transfer this easily to the Cambrian explosion ("the Ming Wall",
in the analogy): The simper an ancestor, the less likely it is to be
preserved. And whether or not we can find any depends a) on luck
(looking at the right place, was with the documents) and also
potentially the technology available to us. "Absence of ancestral
structures", in both cases, can simply mean either a) none of them were
preserved, but this is as to be expected because they were, by
definition, simpler; or b) have been preserved by at places we haven't
looked at yet or c) have been preserved, but we don't have the equipment
to see them (yet). What it does not allow is the inference that they did
not exist.
explanations or excuses.
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com" ><brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:See above, in Bill Rogers' post? He stated "...you have to
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith, >not evidence.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>>>> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since youre
[ ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>>>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >>> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that
abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his >time was too brief, but that
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by
testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers, >> cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains,
rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those >> criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first >> appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed. >> While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor >> point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that >the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
--2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as >> though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants >> would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented >> with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection
pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to >> make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God >> and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com" ><brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith, >not evidence.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>>>> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively >>>>>>>>> undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional
forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >>> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that
abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
So two points which you seem unwilling to addressDarwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his >time was too brief, but that
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by
testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers, >> cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains,
rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those >> criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first >> appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed. >> While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor >> point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that >the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as >> though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants >> would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented >> with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection
pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to >> make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God >> and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:........
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason
to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that
abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith, not evidence.You keep talking about "naming" the designer. Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all the evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics of the designer. Nobody's asking for design
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus non-designed things.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
The fact remains thare are no accepted transitional fossils in the PreCambrian(Edcarian era). What what you offer is attempted
explanations or excuses.
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest evidence that they are not doing science.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian >ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Jan 12, 2023 at 1:04:13 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:The fact remains thare are no accepted transitional fossils in the PreCambrian(Edcarian era). What what you offer is attempted
On Jan 9, 2023 at 4:36:49 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>
Ron Dean wrote:You are a good source of information. I appreciate you!
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>>>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>>>> intelligence
wrote:Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance. >>>>>>>>
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify
design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer.
That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
Of course we do. The first parts of the wall were build from th 7th
century BC onward, during the Spring and Autumn period by the states of >>>> Qin, Wei, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, and Zhongshan. These were not joint
together in one great wall, but merely protected local points of
strategic interest, and defended against the other kingdoms as much as >>>> against outsiders, which can be seen from the orientation of the walls. >>>> Some of those stretches that protected against outsiders were then
connected by Qin Shi Huang from 220 BC onward. This then became the
foundations of what we think of as the great wall, and successive
dynasties then built on it, either by extending it, or by
repairing/upgrading existing walls. The parts you typically see in
tourist photos are generally built in the Ming dynasty.
So far from not knowing who the designers were, we can identify
different parts of the walls with different designers, because we know >>>> about the different technological abilities that they had acquired over >>>> time (and we find the corresponding tool traces and differences in
materials in the wall) , and we know their different motives and
objectives, which explains the direction and location of the wall
stretches they built etc. The Ming section e.g. used stones and bricks >>>> while older sections are merely rammed earth, an improvement that
corresponds to their greater technological knowledge (invention of the >>>> kiln e.g.) and much greater resources, and it also corresponds to a new >>>> threat, the Mongols, which is why the wall is strongest near Beijing,
because that had become the capital at the time.
We have estimates how may people died building the wall (hundreds of
thousands). We have records on how conscripts were detailed for the
work, and how more skilled workers were recruited and paid. We have
building tools from that time, and we know how they used Sticky rice
mortar, (rice soup and slaked lime) to bind the bricks. Towers are
positioned so that signals could be send to them by line of sight, which >>>> again tells you about the builders, their biology (range and use of
visual perception) and technology.
Read any academic study of the great wall, such as Peter Lum's The
Purple Barrier, or Robert Silverberg's The Long Rampart or Arthur
Waldron's The Great Wall of China : from history to myth, and you find >>>> all the ingredients for a proper design-based theories:
- some traits of the wall are explained by the shifting motives and
intentions of the designer, explanations of the form "This part of the >>>> wall was build at this position because the designer was concerned about >>>> X" - with independent evidence that the designer was, indeed, concerned >>>> about X. A typical example is a planning document by Prime Minister, Kao >>>> Lu (from ca. 502) that outlined his arguments in favor of the "five
benefits of long walls.
- some traits of the wall are explained by the technology available (or >>>> unavailable) to the designer "this part of the wall has a foundation of >>>> roughly hewn stone, while the rest is bricks. This is because the
limited road work made transport of stones difficult, which is why even >>>> though they are as a material better suited, bricks which could be build >>>> on site are more often used.
- over time, studies of the great wall have taught us more about the
designer, we now know much more about them than even 20 years ago. In
particular we have become much better to assign stretches of wall to
individual rulers or high ranking civil servants. We have also learned >>>> more about the shifting relations between the nomads and the settled
population.
Now show me any, or ideally all, of these with ID design "theories", and >>>> we are cooking: explain a given trait of a species by the motives and
tools of the designer (independently evidenced), and how our knowledge >>>> of the designer has improved in the last decades by analyzing the
objects of their design
Thanks! :o)
There is by the way another lesson to be learned from the great wall,
or rather its study, that is sort of relevant for our discussion. Only
around a quarter of the Ming Wall still exists. The photos that you
normally see, and which shape most people's impression of what the great
wall is, are from these 25% or so. That lead to widespread
misconceptions, which until the early 20th century also dominated
academia.
In this vision, the Wall was one big entity, that was build "from
scratch", as a singular engineering feast, and marked a shift in the
wider political stance: from one of expansion towards a defensive stance
against nomad populations.
But that overlooks that the preservation of the Wall was heavily biased
towards the most solid sections, build with the most lasting materials -
and that often also meant a) the relatively younger parts and b) the
strategically most important ones.
The reality was therefore much more mixed - older, much simpler walls
made from pressed earth and/or wood were getting linked up, or sometimes
reinforced. Sometimes there were substantive gaps (mainly a string of
watchtowers only), often incorporating natural features such as rivers
and mountains. (there is this popular myth that the wall can be seen
from the moon - well, if you count rivers and mountains as part of the
wall, maybe, but not the brick-and-mortar wall) To confuse matters even
more, there is a much younger wall, the "willow palisade wall" of which
even less remains: simply because it consists simply of willows, planted
closely together and their branches then connected with some material.
They extended the "brick and mortar" walls long after these had stopped
doing their job (due to location, mainly)
Maybe you see where I'm going with this: If we only had the
archeological evidence to guide us, it would look as if the walls
suddenly appeared, in a very sophisticated form, and then equally
suddenly disappeared. Sounds familiar? But this is just an artefact of
the way in which the environment "sampled" the wall - the older, more
primitive precursors on which it was build simply disappeared without
leaving (much of a) trace, precisely because they were more simple, less
structured and sophisticated. How do we know they were there? Partly
because of sheer luck - some written accounts were discovered that were
older than the previous documentation. And our methods also got better,
in particular aerial archeology now allows us to identify disruptions in
the landscape from human activity that were previously impossible.
You can transfer this easily to the Cambrian explosion ("the Ming Wall",
in the analogy): The simper an ancestor, the less likely it is to be
preserved. And whether or not we can find any depends a) on luck
(looking at the right place, was with the documents) and also
potentially the technology available to us. "Absence of ancestral
structures", in both cases, can simply mean either a) none of them were
preserved, but this is as to be expected because they were, by
definition, simpler; or b) have been preserved by at places we haven't
looked at yet or c) have been preserved, but we don't have the equipment
to see them (yet). What it does not allow is the inference that they did
not exist.
explanations or excuses.
The other lesson links the wall story to your monkey example. What of an
alien who knows nothing about humans finds the same evidence of the
Walls as we have? Well, if they are similar enough to us, they may
correctly identify the concept of a wall. But they could then as well
infer that the rivers and mountains were also made by the same
architects - without knowing who they were and what their abilities was,
no way to tell the difference, they both serve the same purpose.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/softbodied-fossils-from-the-shipai-formation-lower-cambrian-of-the-three-gorge-area-south-china/D936E93438D014254EE56349B07FE3E8
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because weI've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two >>>>> possible explanations.
know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars, >>>>>> computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains, >>>>>> rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it
would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific
designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if
they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some
things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g.
mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long >>>>>> periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that >>>>>> criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does
not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much >>>>>> nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they
were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc).
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian >ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian >ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-outAs a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian >ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:much depth as Collins, so he is out of the ordinary in that way, perhaps. And many clergy in the non-evangelical protestant churches would be "far out" theologically compared to many of their congregants; you can find Anglican priests who will say on the
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:As a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >> >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >> >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >> >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian
ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Francis Collins does not seem far out among protestants to me. It's possibly true that, world-wide, the majority of Anglicans reject evolution, but certainly in the US and the UK a majority of them accept it. Most of them may not think about it in as
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
...personal experience of living in Ghana for 4 years. 2/3's of Anglicans are African...Lots of white Anglicans forget that they are minority in their denomination.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 03:00:48 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:much depth as Collins, so he is out of the ordinary in that way, perhaps. And many clergy in the non-evangelical protestant churches would be "far out" theologically compared to many of their congregants; you can find Anglican priests who will say on the
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:As a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >> >>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >> >>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >> >>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >> >>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian
ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but >> >to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Francis Collins does not seem far out among protestants to me. It's possibly true that, world-wide, the majority of Anglicans reject evolution, but certainly in the US and the UK a majority of them accept it. Most of them may not think about it in as
The suggestion that a majority of Anglicans worldwide reject
evolution, surprises me a bit - have you a source for it?
There clearly are different views in the USA. I found this article interesting:
https://anglicancompass.com/creation-evolution-and-pastors/
"Yet rather than advocating the simple creed, and then making space
for believers to discuss varies theories, some parishes identify as “Creationist” or “Intelligent Design” or pro “Theistic Evolution.” But
our churches shouldn’t be presenting one or the other interpretation
or theory as if it is the only authoritative way to understand
creation. That’s not the pastor’s job. We weren’t ordained to promote creationism, but creed. We aren’t called to preach evolutionary
biology, but to preach Bible basics. Our job is to present God the
Father as creator of heaven and earth. Period."
("Anglican Compass is led by priests in the Anglican Church in North America. But we are not an official publishing arm of the ACNA". )
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:As a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian
ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Francis Collins does not seem far out among protestants to me.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
On 1/13/23 5:28 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
First, it is the *job* of ID to find out stuff about the designer. If
you admit ID can't do that, you admit it is a failure from the start.
It would be like the doctor who announces, "I have ascertained with near certainty that the patient is unwell. My job, therefore, is done." The
role of science is not simply to make pronouncements to mollify
believers; it is to raise new questions and answer those questions, too.
Second, any competent investigator *could* identify some properties of
the designer, if there was one, based on the evidence at hand. It is
only the absence of evidence for design that hinders such investigation.
Third, you keep saying that ID can identify design. All the empirical evidence to date shows overwhelmingly that it cannot. You make a big
deal out the lack of Precambrian fossils, but you somehow miss the
absence, at least as prominent, of evidence indicating design.
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need
to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision
to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"........
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>>>>> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >>>> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith, >> not evidence.You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all the
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed, would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest evidence that they are not doing science.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by
testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers, >>> cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those >>> criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first >>> appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed. >>> While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus >>> non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not.
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as >>> though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants >>> would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection
pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect >>> preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the >>> right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God >>> and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 13, 2023 at 11:48:20 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:Frankly, I can't decide if you're dishonest or simply don't
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:42:24 GMT, the following appeared in]
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[
Bill Rogers is not the first or only person to bring up this issue.See above, in Bill Rogers' post? He stated "...you have toNo, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,..................................................I think you are playing games with me!No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strataOn a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you?re
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >>>>> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
not evidence.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by >>>> testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those >>>> criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first >>>> appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus >>>> non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably
distinguish designed things from non-designed things"
Once more you failed to address this requirement, as I noted
you continue to do. Shall I conclude that you have no way to
test for the presence of design, and can only fall back on
this sort of irrelevant blather? It doesn't matter *what*
Darwin said, and it doesn't matter whether you see
transitional fossils; all that matters is whether you can
specify criteria which unambiguously indicate whether
something is the result of conscious design.
And I have offered my answer. First, I think in some cases
that design is the _best_ explanation for what we observe.
I think that reproduction is an exellent example of what could
be considered as deliberate, purposefull design by some
intelligent agent(s). At this point in time we cannot design
a robot that can reproduce itself, considering all that is
required.
Where would our robot find the raw material, refine it and
turn it into parts needed for it's reproduction and even more
important, where would the massive amounts of information
(know how) or intelligence required come from? Programing
cannot be allowed, since this require _outside_ intelligence.
I suspect that one day science will create a living, reproducing
thing, substance or material that can reproduce itself if, the
proper environment, materials and energy is provided, if this
hasn't been already accomplished, I believe it will be, but not
without outside intelligence, chemicals, materials and container
to keepout invading destructive microbes and the required
materials set - up. A living cell is surrended by a protective
envelope. If punctured and it's insides escape into a supportive
organic liquid, the cell dies. By putting back everything that
escaped, is there any reason to believe the organism will come
back to life from death. What about NDEs we hear about, I do
not believe that are ever really dead. But I don't know anything
fro a fact.
--2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as >>>> though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants >>>> would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect >>>> preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the >>>> right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:42:24 GMT, the following appeared in]
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[
See above, in Bill Rogers' post? He stated "...you have toNo, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith, >> not evidence...................................................I think you are playing games with me!No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>>>>> or abrupt geologically speaking.On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since youre
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >>>> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by
testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers, >>> cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those >>> criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first >>> appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed. >>> While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus >>> non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably
distinguish designed things from non-designed things"
Once more you failed to address this requirement, as I noted
you continue to do. Shall I conclude that you have no way to
test for the presence of design, and can only fall back on
this sort of irrelevant blather? It doesn't matter *what*
Darwin said, and it doesn't matter whether you see
transitional fossils; all that matters is whether you can
specify criteria which unambiguously indicate whether
something is the result of conscious design.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as >>> though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants >>> would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection
pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect >>> preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the >>> right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God >>> and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 12, 2023 at 1:04:13 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:The fact remains thare are no accepted transitional fossils in the
On Jan 9, 2023 at 4:36:49 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>
Ron Dean wrote:You are a good source of information. I appreciate you!
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
wrote:Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance. >>>>>>>>>
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer. >>>>>>>>>
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>>>>> intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify
design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer.
That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
Of course we do. The first parts of the wall were build from th 7th
century BC onward, during the Spring and Autumn period by the states of >>>>> Qin, Wei, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, and Zhongshan. These were not joint
together in one great wall, but merely protected local points of
strategic interest, and defended against the other kingdoms as much as >>>>> against outsiders, which can be seen from the orientation of the walls. >>>>> Some of those stretches that protected against outsiders were then
connected by Qin Shi Huang from 220 BC onward. This then became the >>>>> foundations of what we think of as the great wall, and successive
dynasties then built on it, either by extending it, or by
repairing/upgrading existing walls. The parts you typically see in
tourist photos are generally built in the Ming dynasty.
So far from not knowing who the designers were, we can identify
different parts of the walls with different designers, because we know >>>>> about the different technological abilities that they had acquired over >>>>> time (and we find the corresponding tool traces and differences in
materials in the wall) , and we know their different motives and
objectives, which explains the direction and location of the wall
stretches they built etc. The Ming section e.g. used stones and bricks >>>>> while older sections are merely rammed earth, an improvement that
corresponds to their greater technological knowledge (invention of the >>>>> kiln e.g.) and much greater resources, and it also corresponds to a new >>>>> threat, the Mongols, which is why the wall is strongest near Beijing, >>>>> because that had become the capital at the time.
We have estimates how may people died building the wall (hundreds of >>>>> thousands). We have records on how conscripts were detailed for the
work, and how more skilled workers were recruited and paid. We have >>>>> building tools from that time, and we know how they used Sticky rice >>>>> mortar, (rice soup and slaked lime) to bind the bricks. Towers are
positioned so that signals could be send to them by line of sight, which >>>>> again tells you about the builders, their biology (range and use of
visual perception) and technology.
Read any academic study of the great wall, such as Peter Lum's The
Purple Barrier, or Robert Silverberg's The Long Rampart or Arthur
Waldron's The Great Wall of China : from history to myth, and you find >>>>> all the ingredients for a proper design-based theories:
- some traits of the wall are explained by the shifting motives and
intentions of the designer, explanations of the form "This part of the >>>>> wall was build at this position because the designer was concerned about >>>>> X" - with independent evidence that the designer was, indeed, concerned >>>>> about X. A typical example is a planning document by Prime Minister, Kao >>>>> Lu (from ca. 502) that outlined his arguments in favor of the "five
benefits of long walls.
- some traits of the wall are explained by the technology available (or >>>>> unavailable) to the designer "this part of the wall has a foundation of >>>>> roughly hewn stone, while the rest is bricks. This is because the
limited road work made transport of stones difficult, which is why even >>>>> though they are as a material better suited, bricks which could be build >>>>> on site are more often used.
- over time, studies of the great wall have taught us more about the >>>>> designer, we now know much more about them than even 20 years ago. In >>>>> particular we have become much better to assign stretches of wall to >>>>> individual rulers or high ranking civil servants. We have also learned >>>>> more about the shifting relations between the nomads and the settled >>>>> population.
Now show me any, or ideally all, of these with ID design "theories", and >>>>> we are cooking: explain a given trait of a species by the motives and >>>>> tools of the designer (independently evidenced), and how our knowledge >>>>> of the designer has improved in the last decades by analyzing the
objects of their design
Thanks! :o)
There is by the way another lesson to be learned from the great wall, >>> or rather its study, that is sort of relevant for our discussion. Only
around a quarter of the Ming Wall still exists. The photos that you
normally see, and which shape most people's impression of what the great >>> wall is, are from these 25% or so. That lead to widespread
misconceptions, which until the early 20th century also dominated
academia.
In this vision, the Wall was one big entity, that was build "from
scratch", as a singular engineering feast, and marked a shift in the
wider political stance: from one of expansion towards a defensive stance >>> against nomad populations.
But that overlooks that the preservation of the Wall was heavily biased
towards the most solid sections, build with the most lasting materials - >>> and that often also meant a) the relatively younger parts and b) the
strategically most important ones.
The reality was therefore much more mixed - older, much simpler walls
made from pressed earth and/or wood were getting linked up, or sometimes >>> reinforced. Sometimes there were substantive gaps (mainly a string of
watchtowers only), often incorporating natural features such as rivers
and mountains. (there is this popular myth that the wall can be seen
from the moon - well, if you count rivers and mountains as part of the
wall, maybe, but not the brick-and-mortar wall) To confuse matters even
more, there is a much younger wall, the "willow palisade wall" of which
even less remains: simply because it consists simply of willows, planted >>> closely together and their branches then connected with some material.
They extended the "brick and mortar" walls long after these had stopped
doing their job (due to location, mainly)
Maybe you see where I'm going with this: If we only had the
archeological evidence to guide us, it would look as if the walls
suddenly appeared, in a very sophisticated form, and then equally
suddenly disappeared. Sounds familiar? But this is just an artefact of
the way in which the environment "sampled" the wall - the older, more
primitive precursors on which it was build simply disappeared without
leaving (much of a) trace, precisely because they were more simple, less >>> structured and sophisticated. How do we know they were there? Partly
because of sheer luck - some written accounts were discovered that were
older than the previous documentation. And our methods also got better,
in particular aerial archeology now allows us to identify disruptions in >>> the landscape from human activity that were previously impossible.
You can transfer this easily to the Cambrian explosion ("the Ming Wall", >>> in the analogy): The simper an ancestor, the less likely it is to be
preserved. And whether or not we can find any depends a) on luck
(looking at the right place, was with the documents) and also
potentially the technology available to us. "Absence of ancestral
structures", in both cases, can simply mean either a) none of them were
preserved, but this is as to be expected because they were, by
definition, simpler; or b) have been preserved by at places we haven't
looked at yet or c) have been preserved, but we don't have the equipment >>> to see them (yet). What it does not allow is the inference that they did >>> not exist.
PreCambrian(Edcarian era). What what you offer is attempted
explanations or excuses.
Well, yes and no. It is an explanation, to the extend that one is
necessary. That is, everyone who is involved with historical research of
any type, be it about human history, pre-history or the history of life
etc could have told you even before the project starts that there will
be inevitably a point where data gets very sparse so that accounts get
more and more conjectural and coarse grained, and eventually runs out entirely.
That for a long time, that was the Cambrian is a contingent fact, but
merely instantiates a pattern that we encounter in all disciplines, and
in that sense was predictable. And as others told you, the dual factors,
luck and better technology, has by now given us at least some data of
even older life, so it looks less and less abrupt as research continues, which is also what we should expect (or rather, can sometimes hope for - eventually all data will with logical necessity dry up the further we go
back in history)
The other lesson links the wall story to your monkey example. What of an >>> alien who knows nothing about humans finds the same evidence of the
Walls as we have? Well, if they are similar enough to us, they may
correctly identify the concept of a wall. But they could then as well
infer that the rivers and mountains were also made by the same
architects - without knowing who they were and what their abilities was, >>> no way to tell the difference, they both serve the same purpose.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/softbodied-fossils-from-the-shipai-formation-lower-cambrian-of-the-three-gorge-area-south-china/D936E93438D014254EE56349B07FE3E8
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because weI've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two >>>>>> possible explanations.
know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars,
computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains,
rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it
would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific
designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if
they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some
things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g.
mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long
periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that >>>>>>> criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does
not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much
nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they
were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc). >>>>>>>
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:42:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith, >> not evidence.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata >>>>>> or abrupt geologically speaking.
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding >>>>>>>>>> design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian
Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some
millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making
baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution,
which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how
you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully
functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >>>> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of
years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
Once again, I point out that you have repeatedly claimed others
willfully *reject* design because they are atheists, as you do above.
This necessarily implies you willfully *accept* design because of your
belief in God, that your Designer is God.
To be consistent, you need to stop posting one or the other, and
preferably both, since the evidence for purposeful Design and against unguided evolution aren't informed by either atheism or faith in God.
Pick your poison.
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by
testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers, >>> cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those >>> criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first >>> appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed. >>> While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus >>> non-designed things.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
Once again:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx>
Note the date of its discovery was within Darwin's lifetime.
Once again, do you consider Archaeopteryx a transitional form?. If
yes, then how do you reconcile that with your comments above? If no,
why do you believe it's not? And either way, what do you mean by "transitional (intermediate) fossils?
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as >>> though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants >>> would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection
pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect >>> preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the >>> right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God >>> and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
Why do you have so much trouble providing straightforward answers to reasonable and relevant questions?
Perhaps, but I believe the latest research in southern China has found
huge numbers of soft bodies some with their opening, guts, eyes and
other body part in the cambrian, but nothing in strata below: which was
just as well suited for perseveration as the cambrian.
But the explanation
so far is that the actual evolution occurred elsewhere and due to the extremely rapiid growth rate they migrated into the areas found.
My problem with this is that the huge numbers of phyla, classes, families
etc is actually observed, is real and fact. The explanation of evolution elsewhere is unobserved, theorized and an educated guesswork.
And this fact: observed Vs unobserved almost everywhere
undermines evolution.
On Jan 14, 2023 at 9:06:22 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
However, there is always exceptions.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:As a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and >>>>>> Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian
ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but >>>> to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Francis Collins does not seem far out among protestants to me.
Well, if Athels' benchmark is the CoE, pretty much every vaguely
committed protestant is far out :o) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2dNCw0hPLs
It's possibly true that, world-wide, the majority of Anglicans reject evolution, but certainly in the US and the UK a majority of them accept
it. Most of them may not think about it in as much depth as Collins, so
he is out of the ordinary in that way, perhaps. And many clergy in the non-evangelical protestant churches would be "far out" theologically
compared to many of their congregants; you can find Anglican priests
who will say on the record that the Resurrection was not physical.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 1:05:51 PM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:much depth as Collins, so he is out of the ordinary in that way, perhaps. And many clergy in the non-evangelical protestant churches would be "far out" theologically compared to many of their congregants; you can find Anglican priests who will say on the
On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 03:00:48 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:As a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >> >> >>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >> >> >>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >> >> >>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >> >> >>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian
ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but >> >> >to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Francis Collins does not seem far out among protestants to me. It's possibly true that, world-wide, the majority of Anglicans reject evolution, but certainly in the US and the UK a majority of them accept it. Most of them may not think about it in as
evolution, and also female clergy, gay clergy, gay marriage, than are the UK-based leaders of the denomination.The suggestion that a majority of Anglicans worldwide reject
evolution, surprises me a bit - have you a source for it?
No source, other than the personal experience of living in Ghana for 4 years. 2/3's of Anglicans are African, and my experience of African Anglicans was that they are much more theologically conservative with respect to things like creationism vs
A majority of UK and US based Anglicans accept evolution (easy enough to find surveys on that) but I haven't found a survey specifically of African Anglicans (that's why I hedged with the phrase "possibly true"). Lots of white Anglicans forget that theyare minority in their denomination.
There clearly are different views in the USA. I found this article
interesting:
https://anglicancompass.com/creation-evolution-and-pastors/
"Yet rather than advocating the simple creed, and then making space
for believers to discuss varies theories, some parishes identify as
Creationist or Intelligent Design or pro Theistic Evolution. But
our churches shouldnt be presenting one or the other interpretation
or theory as if it is the only authoritative way to understand
creation. Thats not the pastors job. We werent ordained to promote
creationism, but creed. We arent called to preach evolutionary
biology, but to preach Bible basics. Our job is to present God the
Father as creator of heaven and earth. Period."
("Anglican Compass is led by priests in the Anglican Church in North
America. But we are not an official publishing arm of the ACNA". )
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Jan 14, 2023 at 6:35:10 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"........
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished
product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt >>>>>>> appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
not evidence.
No, I've pointed out several times that there is no evidence which points to the
identity of the designer.
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all the
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics
of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific
evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence
you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin
of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed, would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest evidence that they are not doing science.
I have attempted to do this on many occasions. I consider reproduction
an example of design. But not design itself, but the capacity to reproduce. Reproduction requires chemicals, matter and massive amounts of
information( know how) or intelligence. To program a robot to build
another robot does not work, since outside information, etc has to be
placed within it's reach. That is if it ever happens. Chemicals in a
lab requires outside help for parts, materials container etc.
And you continue to seem so unwilling to address them that I think you cannot come up with an answer that makes sense even to yourself.
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by >>> testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those
criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first
appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not.
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific
about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a
transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only
reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut
tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as
though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants
would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian >ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Jan 13, 2023 at 11:48:20 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: [...]
See above, in Bill Rogers' post? He stated "...you have toBill Rogers is not the first or only person to bring up this issue.
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably
distinguish designed things from non-designed things"
Once more you failed to address this requirement, as I noted
you continue to do. Shall I conclude that you have no way to
test for the presence of design, and can only fall back on
this sort of irrelevant blather? It doesn't matter *what*
Darwin said, and it doesn't matter whether you see
transitional fossils; all that matters is whether you can
specify criteria which unambiguously indicate whether
something is the result of conscious design.
And I have offered my answer. First, I think in some cases
that design is the _best_ explanation for what we observe.
I think that reproduction is an exellent example of what could
be considered as deliberate, purposefull design by some
intelligent agent(s). At this point in time we cannot design
a robot that can reproduce itself, considering all that is
required.
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 12, 2023 at 1:04:13 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:The fact remains thare are no accepted transitional fossils in the
On Jan 9, 2023 at 4:36:49 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>
Ron Dean wrote:You are a good source of information. I appreciate you!
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
wrote:Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance. >>>>>>>>>
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer. >>>>>>>>>
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>>>>> intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify
design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer.
That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
Of course we do. The first parts of the wall were build from th 7th
century BC onward, during the Spring and Autumn period by the states of >>>>> Qin, Wei, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, and Zhongshan. These were not joint
together in one great wall, but merely protected local points of
strategic interest, and defended against the other kingdoms as much as >>>>> against outsiders, which can be seen from the orientation of the walls. >>>>> Some of those stretches that protected against outsiders were then
connected by Qin Shi Huang from 220 BC onward. This then became the >>>>> foundations of what we think of as the great wall, and successive
dynasties then built on it, either by extending it, or by
repairing/upgrading existing walls. The parts you typically see in
tourist photos are generally built in the Ming dynasty.
So far from not knowing who the designers were, we can identify
different parts of the walls with different designers, because we know >>>>> about the different technological abilities that they had acquired over >>>>> time (and we find the corresponding tool traces and differences in
materials in the wall) , and we know their different motives and
objectives, which explains the direction and location of the wall
stretches they built etc. The Ming section e.g. used stones and bricks >>>>> while older sections are merely rammed earth, an improvement that
corresponds to their greater technological knowledge (invention of the >>>>> kiln e.g.) and much greater resources, and it also corresponds to a new >>>>> threat, the Mongols, which is why the wall is strongest near Beijing, >>>>> because that had become the capital at the time.
We have estimates how may people died building the wall (hundreds of >>>>> thousands). We have records on how conscripts were detailed for the
work, and how more skilled workers were recruited and paid. We have >>>>> building tools from that time, and we know how they used Sticky rice >>>>> mortar, (rice soup and slaked lime) to bind the bricks. Towers are
positioned so that signals could be send to them by line of sight, which >>>>> again tells you about the builders, their biology (range and use of
visual perception) and technology.
Read any academic study of the great wall, such as Peter Lum's The
Purple Barrier, or Robert Silverberg's The Long Rampart or Arthur
Waldron's The Great Wall of China : from history to myth, and you find >>>>> all the ingredients for a proper design-based theories:
- some traits of the wall are explained by the shifting motives and
intentions of the designer, explanations of the form "This part of the >>>>> wall was build at this position because the designer was concerned about >>>>> X" - with independent evidence that the designer was, indeed, concerned >>>>> about X. A typical example is a planning document by Prime Minister, Kao >>>>> Lu (from ca. 502) that outlined his arguments in favor of the "five
benefits of long walls.
- some traits of the wall are explained by the technology available (or >>>>> unavailable) to the designer "this part of the wall has a foundation of >>>>> roughly hewn stone, while the rest is bricks. This is because the
limited road work made transport of stones difficult, which is why even >>>>> though they are as a material better suited, bricks which could be build >>>>> on site are more often used.
- over time, studies of the great wall have taught us more about the >>>>> designer, we now know much more about them than even 20 years ago. In >>>>> particular we have become much better to assign stretches of wall to >>>>> individual rulers or high ranking civil servants. We have also learned >>>>> more about the shifting relations between the nomads and the settled >>>>> population.
Now show me any, or ideally all, of these with ID design "theories", and >>>>> we are cooking: explain a given trait of a species by the motives and >>>>> tools of the designer (independently evidenced), and how our knowledge >>>>> of the designer has improved in the last decades by analyzing the
objects of their design
Thanks! :o)
There is by the way another lesson to be learned from the great wall, >>> or rather its study, that is sort of relevant for our discussion. Only
around a quarter of the Ming Wall still exists. The photos that you
normally see, and which shape most people's impression of what the great >>> wall is, are from these 25% or so. That lead to widespread
misconceptions, which until the early 20th century also dominated
academia.
In this vision, the Wall was one big entity, that was build "from
scratch", as a singular engineering feast, and marked a shift in the
wider political stance: from one of expansion towards a defensive stance >>> against nomad populations.
But that overlooks that the preservation of the Wall was heavily biased
towards the most solid sections, build with the most lasting materials - >>> and that often also meant a) the relatively younger parts and b) the
strategically most important ones.
The reality was therefore much more mixed - older, much simpler walls
made from pressed earth and/or wood were getting linked up, or sometimes >>> reinforced. Sometimes there were substantive gaps (mainly a string of
watchtowers only), often incorporating natural features such as rivers
and mountains. (there is this popular myth that the wall can be seen
from the moon - well, if you count rivers and mountains as part of the
wall, maybe, but not the brick-and-mortar wall) To confuse matters even
more, there is a much younger wall, the "willow palisade wall" of which
even less remains: simply because it consists simply of willows, planted >>> closely together and their branches then connected with some material.
They extended the "brick and mortar" walls long after these had stopped
doing their job (due to location, mainly)
Maybe you see where I'm going with this: If we only had the
archeological evidence to guide us, it would look as if the walls
suddenly appeared, in a very sophisticated form, and then equally
suddenly disappeared. Sounds familiar? But this is just an artefact of
the way in which the environment "sampled" the wall - the older, more
primitive precursors on which it was build simply disappeared without
leaving (much of a) trace, precisely because they were more simple, less >>> structured and sophisticated. How do we know they were there? Partly
because of sheer luck - some written accounts were discovered that were
older than the previous documentation. And our methods also got better,
in particular aerial archeology now allows us to identify disruptions in >>> the landscape from human activity that were previously impossible.
You can transfer this easily to the Cambrian explosion ("the Ming Wall", >>> in the analogy): The simper an ancestor, the less likely it is to be
preserved. And whether or not we can find any depends a) on luck
(looking at the right place, was with the documents) and also
potentially the technology available to us. "Absence of ancestral
structures", in both cases, can simply mean either a) none of them were
preserved, but this is as to be expected because they were, by
definition, simpler; or b) have been preserved by at places we haven't
looked at yet or c) have been preserved, but we don't have the equipment >>> to see them (yet). What it does not allow is the inference that they did >>> not exist.
PreCambrian(Edcarian era). What you offer is attempted
explanations or excuses.
Well, yes and no. It is an explanation, to the extend that one is
necessary. That is, everyone who is involved with historical research of
any type, be it about human history, pre-history or the history of life
etc could have told you even before the project starts that there will
be inevitably a point where data gets very sparse so that accounts get
more and more conjectural and coarse grained, and eventually runs out entirely.
That for a long time, that was the Cambrian is a contingent fact, but
merely instantiates a pattern that we encounter in all disciplines, and
in that sense was predictable. And as others told you, the dual factors,
luck and better technology, has by now given us at least some data of
even older life, so it looks less and less abrupt as research continues, which is also what we should expect (or rather, can sometimes hope for - eventually all data will with logical necessity dry up the further we go
back in history)
The other lesson links the wall story to your monkey example. What of an >>> alien who knows nothing about humans finds the same evidence of the
Walls as we have? Well, if they are similar enough to us, they may
correctly identify the concept of a wall. But they could then as well
infer that the rivers and mountains were also made by the same
architects - without knowing who they were and what their abilities was, >>> no way to tell the difference, they both serve the same purpose.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/softbodied-fossils-from-the-shipai-formation-lower-cambrian-of-the-three-gorge-area-south-china/D936E93438D014254EE56349B07FE3E8
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because weI've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two >>>>>> possible explanations.
know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars,
computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains,
rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it
would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific
designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if
they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some
things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g.
mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long
periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that >>>>>>> criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does
not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much
nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they
were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc). >>>>>>>
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Jan 13, 2023 at 10:09:16 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/13/23 5:28 PM, Ron Dean wrote:No, design stands alone, it followed, from the evidence for design,
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
First, it is the *job* of ID to find out stuff about the designer. If
you admit ID can't do that, you admit it is a failure from the start.
a designer is implied.
I consider Evolution an alternative explanation
by Darwin after he read the book 'Natural Theology" by wm. Paley
to write an anti- Pailey book and invent a naturalistic method to
accomplish the same results. Darwin is credited with fathering the
theory of evolution, but considering Darwin's admiration for Paley's
work he felt the desire to contravene Paley. So, in this regard he
owes a debt of gratitude to Paley.
It would be like the doctor who announces, "I have ascertained with nearNo, the job of the doctor is spelled out!
certainty that the patient is unwell. My job, therefore, is done." The
role of science is not simply to make pronouncements to mollify
believers; it is to raise new questions and answer those questions, too.
Second, any competent investigator *could* identify some properties ofI think reproduction is a clear example of design. Until recently, even if
the designer, if there was one, based on the evidence at hand. It is
only the absence of evidence for design that hinders such investigation.
so today, humans were able to design a robot that could reproduce itself
this would be only because of intelligence or programming.
Third, you keep saying that ID can identify design. All the empiricalIn my view, the sudden appearence in the Cambrian without any transitional fossils leading up to the huge numbers of phyla, classes, ---species that appeared in the Cambrian strata complete with functioning body parts, including compound eyes such as dragon flies an bees have strongly implies intelligent design.
evidence to date shows overwhelmingly that it cannot. You make a big
deal out the lack of Precambrian fossils, but you somehow miss the
absence, at least as prominent, of evidence indicating design.
And even more striking is the appearence of massive, innumerical amounts of information( know how) required for the formation of these varied animal phyla.
When and how did this highly complex information arise? I strongly suspect that only one's own paradigm overides this evidence.
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:23:08 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:33:08 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Surely, you realize that it's virtually impossible to override one's paradigm.
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>> intelligence
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the >>>>>> Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent >>>>> evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>>>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the >>>>> paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design.
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >>>> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >>>> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would
still be based on the available evidence.
Surely, you realize that what you say above applies to you as well.
And in this case. no intelligence ever greater than the spider monkey is
the paradigm.
My impression is that wouldn't be your paradigm. So why presume it
would be anybody else's paradigm, except as a convenient strawman to
evade the point?
Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least notFrequently, I've post our that I think that design is the better of two
the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for
everything except design.
explanations for what has been observed.
Yes, and I acknowledged your frequently stated opinion. What you
*still* haven't done is explain on what basis you think design is the
better explanation. Why is that?
And since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".That's an alternative, but there's usually the refusal to accept what one
observes is reality, that is, if it conflicts with one's paradigm
Once again, what you say above applies to you as well, which means you describe a distinction without a difference.
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:09:31 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:29:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 02:26:05 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>This may be valid, but it's an excuse!
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 8:30:46 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 21:55:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>But the fact remains compound animals appeared comparatively abruptly
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:35:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:44:22 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2023 at 3:40:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 14:08:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Ok, I've failed, I tried, but I'll admit I have not met my burden to convince
On Jan 4, 2023 at 4:41:22 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 06:54:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:That does not explain how or the evidence you used to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>> conclusions.
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
wrote:
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
wrote:
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed."
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit fliesEvidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what
Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory
genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and
reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In
this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor,
inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail
the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
I acknowledge your main point. You have expresses your main point >>>>>>>>>>> many times and in many ways. What you fail to acknowledge is my main
point. That some genes are ancient and conserved doesn't explain how
you think that's evidence either for design or against evolution. It's
as if you're blind to that gap in your argument. Merely repeating >>>>>>>>>>> your opinions does nothing to fill in that gap. As Sidney Harris >>>>>>>>>>> famously cartooned "you need to be more explicit here".
You're absolutely correct; pointing out that you haven't explained >>>>>>>>> your main point doesn't explain my main point. Not sure why you >>>>>>>>> expect it to. My guess is your comments are yet another attempt to >>>>>>>>> pass your burden of proof onto me, a false equivalence.
Read the quoted text. Even you should recognize it was you who >>>>>>>>> mentioned homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion as evidence for >>>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against unguided evolution. Even you should >>>>>>>>> be able to understand your expressed claims create a burden on you to >>>>>>>>> make your case aka to connect the dots aka to fill in the gap aka to >>>>>>>>> be more explicit. This is Debate 101 rules. Not sure how many >>>>>>>>> different ways I need to say this before you finally explain how you >>>>>>>>> think homeobox genes and Cambrian Explosion are evidence for >>>>>>>>> purposeful design and/or against evolution.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that I disagree with your >>>>>>>>> expressed claims. Perhaps you believe I haven't explained why I >>>>>>>>> disagree with your expressed claims, and so that removes your burden. >>>>>>>>> I believe I have, many times in many ways. If you disagree with my >>>>>>>>> explanations, or if you're confused by them, the place to say so is in
reply to those posts, not as you do above. Either way, any burdens on
me and what I have or haven't done doesn't discharge your burden. >>>>>>>>>
you. And I know and understand why and where I missed my burden to >>>>>>>> justify my views regarding the origin of homeobox genes and where I >>>>>>>> failed to convince you that the Cambrian explosion is erroneous. >>>>>>>> So, I have no desire to pass my burden on you. So, please explain the >>>>>>>> evidence that you appealed to which convinces you of _your_ views >>>>>>>> in regards of the origin of homeobox genes and what it is and please >>>>>>>> explain your views and the evidence upon which you base your views >>>>>>>> regard ing the appearence of the Cambrian phyla.
Once again, if all you want to do is convince yourself, then just say..
"It looks designed to me" or similar, and there is no argument. My >>>>>>>>> impression was you were trying to present a coherent line of reasoning
to convince others. Was I wrong? If not, then you need to do better >>>>>>>>> than repeat bare facts and baseless claims.
I believe everyone has a paradigm, one that gives them hope, pleasure >>>>>>>> or satisfaction and often without rhyme or reason. This also applies to me.
I've read, studied and searched for hard factual evidence that justifies my
paradigm. But I'm just about ready to give up!
My "views" as expressed in the quoted text above are that homeobox >>>>>>> genes and the Cambrian Explosion don't by themselves qualify as
evidence for purposeful design. Whether by purposeful design or by >>>>>>> unguided evolution, their occurrences are facts not in dispute. What >>>>>>> is in dispute is their cause.
IIUC your "view" is that homeobox genes and the Cambrian Explosion >>>>>>> could *not* have happened by unguided evolution, and *must* have >>>>>>> happened by purposeful design. These are two separate positive
claims. To make these claims without basis is to beg the question. >>>>>>> You don't accept when someone makes baseless claims to the contrary. >>>>>>> So you have no good reason to expect others to accept your baseless >>>>>>> claims.
OTOH I have expressed my "view" that occurrence of homeobox genes and >>>>>>> the Cambrian Explosion are *consistent with* either purposeful design >>>>>>> or unguided evolution. I have said that a purposeful designer could >>>>>>> have done these things to make it look *as if* the cause was unguided >>>>>>> evolution. I have said that where evidence exists, it's of unguided >>>>>>> evolution of new organisms contingent on previous organisms. I have >>>>>>> cited the appearance of rabbits hundreds of millions of years after >>>>>>> the Cambrian, and of multiple transitional series, as examples of that >>>>>>> contingency, which unguided evolution necessarily follows.
So now your turn. On what basis do you say homeobox genes and the >>>>>>> Cambrian Explosion are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>>> unguided evolution? And this time, no opinions, beliefs, or bare >>>>>>> facts; I've read them all many times over the years. Just give your >>>>>>> explanation.
Maybe homeobox genes are not the explanation as to explain the abrupt >>>>>> appearance (in geological terms) without links back to a common ancestor.
There is only theory and educated guesswork as to what ancestors
preceded this Cambrian "explosion".
Once again, geologically abrupt appearance is *not* in dispute. As I >>>>> stated in my last paragraph above, the point *is* how the Cambrian
Explosion is evidence for purposeful design and/or against evolution. >>>>> That's your claim, posted and reposted many times over many years. For >>>>> someone who insists to have explained this many times and in detail, >>>>> you have a lot of trouble actually doing so. If you can't connect the >>>>> dots between your claim's premise and its conclusion, then your claim >>>>> is just another baseless opinion, to which you're entitled, but it's >>>>> not an explanation.
in the strata of the Cambrian without being preceded by intermediates
back to a common ancestor. Maybe this does not prove design, but
it effectively discounts evolution, except through_faith_ that there must >>>> been intermediates previously.
preceding
Once again, you assert a false equivalence. The *plausibility* of
ancestral forms of Cambrian organisms is based on hard evidence of the
existence of prior Ediacaran forms. I acknowledge there is
insufficient evidence to *prove* that ancestry. However, that lack
*plausibly* explained by the nature of taphonomy, that fossils are at
best spotty recordings of events in time, and that Ediacaran and
Cambrian fossils from over half a billion years ago are necessarily
among the rarest of rare fossils.
That's your opinion! For which you provide no basis!! How is your
opinion superior to those who have actually studied taphonomy!?!?
(I suppose argument by punctuation is a change of pace)
IIUC your argument above is to substitute design for evolution, toNo, I understand, but for the sake of argument: there is direct empirical
claim the *plausiblity* that Cambrian forms were designed. At the
same time, you reject the *plausibility* that Ediacaran organisms are
intermediate to Cambrian forms, based on an admitted lack of evidence
for design. This shows you misunderstand what can logically inferred
from a lack of evidence.
evidence here for both evolution or design.
You keep saying there is evidence for design, but you *still* haven't provided any evidence, despite repeated requests from myself and
others. Why is that?
Here one's paradigm takes control and dictates the conclusions.
So on what basis has your paradigm not taken control of you and
dictated your conclusions?
I suspect atheism is your paradigm: am I wrong?
Once again you raise the issue of atheism. So once again, I point out
that necessarily implies your paradigm is that your purposeful
designer is God, despite your oft-repeated denials.
Worse, your argument above implies that *any* organism lacking *proof*
of ancestry can reasonably be presumed to have been not just designed,
but spontaneously created aka ex nihilo. For someone who has
repeatedly denied spontaneous generation, this is a remarkable
argument for you to make.
On 1/15/23 7:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 11:48:20 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> [...]
See above, in Bill Rogers' post? He stated "...you have toBill Rogers is not the first or only person to bring up this issue.
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably
distinguish designed things from non-designed things"
Once more you failed to address this requirement, as I noted
you continue to do. Shall I conclude that you have no way to
test for the presence of design, and can only fall back on
this sort of irrelevant blather? It doesn't matter *what*
Darwin said, and it doesn't matter whether you see
transitional fossils; all that matters is whether you can
specify criteria which unambiguously indicate whether
something is the result of conscious design.
And I have offered my answer. First, I think in some cases
that design is the _best_ explanation for what we observe.
The operative words in that last sentence being "I think." Your
worldview affects your conclusion (as you yourself have repeatedly
pointed out), and your failure to provide any objective evidence for
design makes it clear that the *only* reason you conclude design is
because you *want* to conclude design.
I think that reproduction is an exellent example of what could
be considered as deliberate, purposefull design by some
intelligent agent(s). At this point in time we cannot design
a robot that can reproduce itself, considering all that is
required.
Why would we want to design a self-reproducing robot?
The manufacture processes we use are far more efficient. And self-replicating robots would likely get in our way, dismantling
working products to get their own raw materials. (A 2016 science
fiction story by Cat Rambo, "Red in Tooth and Cog", explores the issue
of self-reproducing robots. Read it if you get a chance.)
Self-reproduction is easily the biggest difference between design and evolution. Evolution uses it and operates to encourage it. Design
generally avoids it and operates to discourage it. If you wanted to
point to the best objective evidence *against* design, you could not do better than to point at reproduction.
Which brings us back to my first point. That you would look at strong evidence against design and call it evidence for design shows that your conclusions are not based on evidence at all.
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 7, 2023 at 10:54:41 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:11:44 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>>>>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>>>>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explainOn Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>>>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>>>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>>>
address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
You wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "computer code" is counterexample, as it's almost never
conserved, yet you agree is designed. Since even I understand this,
there's no good reason why you don't.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic >>>>> criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives. >>>>> It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>>>> of cases, and beats chance.No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
than computer history.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it
negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution. >>>
Your comments above imply you have evidence which shows Ediacaran
biota are *not* ancestral to Cambrian biota. Yet you specify none.
Why is that? If you have no evidence, this would be another case of
basing your conclusions on a lack of evidence aka GOTG.
It's not my place to prove a negative.
One of the most important aspect of compound life is: how did it get started?.
IIUC your comments above imply you think unless ancestry can be
proved, then the most parsimonious explanation is created kinds which
falsifies evolution. If so, how do reconcile this with your repeated
refutation of spontaneous generation? If not, then how does "this
single fact" falsify evolution?
It's the beginning of all complex animal life. If this is unresolved, then >> it's pointless to try proving further evolutionary changes. That should be >> first.
No, why would that follow? We can study e.g. the evolution of morphology
of English, e.g. the trisyllabic laxing that started in Old English and
then became widespread in Middle English without having any idea where
Old English came from, let alone the origins of language.
In pretty much all disciplines that deal with historical change, the
most recent changes were studied first, issues of origins come at a very
late stage
You think fully functional simply means capable of reproduction and nothing >> more?
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly >>>>> conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>>>> be the case.Not just highly concerned [conserved?], but also fully functional from the >>>> very first
evidence of their existence.
You keep using that phrase "fully functional". ISTM any living
organism which reproduces itself is by definition "fully functional".
So what you mean by that phrase?
Yes, pretty much so. an organism that was capable to live, and to
reproduce, was fully functional in the only meaning that matters
Mountains are caused by volcanoes, continental drift, also they change
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed. Besides mountains >>>> are know to change.
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern >>>>> across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and >>>>> b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they >>>>> will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>>>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and >>>>> knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a >>>>> common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now >>>>> needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>>>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>>>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>>>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I >>>>> gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
Once again, you wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the
animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "mountains" is counterexample, as they are universal yet
you agree are *not* designed. Since even I understand this, there's
no good reason why you don't.
by arising from sea floors, in some cases, and wear away, not in our
liferime, but they do not remain constant or concerned.
And neither does DNA, not even the highly conserved parts. and in
comparison mountains change slower.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are >>>>> rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to >>>>> environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so >>>>> than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that >>>>> means they ought to have been designedNo change was only one part.
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>>>> gave for "being designed"
Review what you wrote and reconcile that with Burkhard's
counterexamples.
The better of two options.With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena youOk, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>>>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, >>>>> abrupt appearance and then stability?
That's your *opinion" without basis. Do you understand what
"evidence" means?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from >>>>> that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By >>>>> your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>>>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a >>>>> real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything >>>>> points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the >>>>> first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and >>>>> could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or >>>>> four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - >>>>> flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the >>>>> time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>>>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities. >>>>> Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another >>>>> 50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies >>>>> of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of >>>>> people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for >>>>> a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters >>>>> etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor, >>>>> but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to >>>>> take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small >>>>> people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain >>>>> that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were >>>>> Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots >>>>> of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of >>>>> documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>>>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from >>>>> the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>>>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike >>>>> fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what >>>>> language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what >>>>> ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were >>>>> just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across >>>>> most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that >>>>> things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took >>>>> just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>>>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any >>>>> physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to >>>>> create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time. >>>>> From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they >>>>> were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>>>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces >>>>> of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples >>>>> heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>>>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much >>>>> higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>>>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that >>>>> the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets >>>>> destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck >>>>> is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>>>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify >>>>> traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to >>>>> reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again >>>>> we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better >>>>> analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>>>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries >>>>> directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian >>>>> explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of >>>>> earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are >>>>> asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there >>>>> is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the >>>>> phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it. >>>>> There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation, >>>>> there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest >>>>> surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that >>>>> the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>>>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from >>>>> as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have >>>>> so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially >>>>> the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now,
in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical >>>>> factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two >>>>> elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again >>>>> unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain >>>>> controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out >>>>> more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In >>>>> that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to >>>>> drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >>>>> A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan >>>>> evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>>>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but
what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with >>>>> other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>>>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely >>>>> zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>>>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level >>>>> of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in >>>>> the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the >>>>> time that for the first time provided the right type of environment. >>>>>
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>>>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build >>>>> on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for >>>>> innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>>>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>>>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then >>>>> "break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the >>>>> other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water. >>>>> With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body >>>>> plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right, >>>>> (as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or >>>>> even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for >>>>> it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a
similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
I attempted to explain in details the reasons I arrived at the >>>>>>>> conclusion I did. Please do me the same favor, explaining in detail >>>>>>>> the evidence and reasons that you went through to arrive at your >>>>>>>> conclusion.
Thank you
On Jan 14, 2023 at 3:17:35 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:42:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 11:50:45 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:39:16 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>..................................................
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:55:28 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I think you are playing games with me!
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:27:59 PM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 15:07:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*No Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-08 02:03:21 +0000, Ron Dean said:On a human time scale brewing a pot of coffee takes some time. Since you’re
[ … ]
In the paragraph just above I admitted to prove my believe regarding
design. But, the "abrupt" appearance pf complex animals and the absence
of transitional or intermediate link to a common ancestor effectively
undermines
evolution.
When you say "abrupt appearance" you mean "development over some >>>>>>>>>> millions of years".
British I should use the tea steeping analogy instead. But to someone not
watching either process unfold, the sudden appearance of the finished >>>>>>>>> product seems abrupt.
Ron Dean has not been specific about what he means when he uses words >>>>>>>> like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt
appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive >>>>> numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked
before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
not evidence.
Once again, I point out that you have repeatedly claimed others
willfully *reject* design because they are atheists, as you do above.
This necessarily implies you willfully *accept* design because of your
belief in God, that your Designer is God.
To be consistent, you need to stop posting one or the other, and
preferably both, since the evidence for purposeful Design and against
unguided evolution aren't informed by either atheism or faith in God.
Pick your poison.
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by >>>> testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those >>>> criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first >>>> appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus >>>> non-designed things.
There is a older fossil bird calle anchiorins which was more bird like than >archy. >https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Birds+before+archaeptyxopic+&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=imagesDarwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
Once again:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx>
Note the date of its discovery was within Darwin's lifetime.
Once again, do you consider Archaeopteryx a transitional form?. If
yes, then how do you reconcile that with your comments above? If no,
why do you believe it's not? And either way, what do you mean by
"transitional (intermediate) fossils?
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as >>>> though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants >>>> would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect >>>> preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the >>>> right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
Why do you have so much trouble providing straightforward answers to
reasonable and relevant questions?
I've pointed out many times, that while I believe that intelligent design is >the best
evidence for what we observe in nature, However, I know of no evidence that >points
to the identity of the designer. A person can _believe_ the designer is God, >but this
is strictly a matter of faith, _not_ of evidence!
On Jan 14, 2023 at 12:37:27 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Maybe I missing something, but I read somewhere that in southern China
On Jan 12, 2023 at 1:04:13 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>
Ron Dean wrote:The fact remains thare are no accepted transitional fossils in the
On Jan 9, 2023 at 4:36:49 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>
Ron Dean wrote:You are a good source of information. I appreciate you!
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:45:47 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"I think it is. No one knows who designed of built the great wall or China. But
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
wrote:Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of
design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance. >>>>>>>>>>
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer. >>>>>>>>>>
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an
intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
I expect that in that case they would look for evidence that something other
than spider monkeys had been around on earth. But that's a different issue.
The thing you are trying to do is develop criteria you can use to identify
design in the complete absence of information about any specific designer.
That's not an unreasonable goal.
that does not rule out its existence.
Of course we do. The first parts of the wall were build from th 7th >>>>>> century BC onward, during the Spring and Autumn period by the states of >>>>>> Qin, Wei, Zhao, Qi, Han, Yan, and Zhongshan. These were not joint
together in one great wall, but merely protected local points of
strategic interest, and defended against the other kingdoms as much as >>>>>> against outsiders, which can be seen from the orientation of the walls. >>>>>> Some of those stretches that protected against outsiders were then >>>>>> connected by Qin Shi Huang from 220 BC onward. This then became the >>>>>> foundations of what we think of as the great wall, and successive >>>>>> dynasties then built on it, either by extending it, or by
repairing/upgrading existing walls. The parts you typically see in >>>>>> tourist photos are generally built in the Ming dynasty.
So far from not knowing who the designers were, we can identify
different parts of the walls with different designers, because we know >>>>>> about the different technological abilities that they had acquired over >>>>>> time (and we find the corresponding tool traces and differences in >>>>>> materials in the wall) , and we know their different motives and
objectives, which explains the direction and location of the wall
stretches they built etc. The Ming section e.g. used stones and bricks >>>>>> while older sections are merely rammed earth, an improvement that
corresponds to their greater technological knowledge (invention of the >>>>>> kiln e.g.) and much greater resources, and it also corresponds to a new >>>>>> threat, the Mongols, which is why the wall is strongest near Beijing, >>>>>> because that had become the capital at the time.
We have estimates how may people died building the wall (hundreds of >>>>>> thousands). We have records on how conscripts were detailed for the >>>>>> work, and how more skilled workers were recruited and paid. We have >>>>>> building tools from that time, and we know how they used Sticky rice >>>>>> mortar, (rice soup and slaked lime) to bind the bricks. Towers are >>>>>> positioned so that signals could be send to them by line of sight, which >>>>>> again tells you about the builders, their biology (range and use of >>>>>> visual perception) and technology.
Read any academic study of the great wall, such as Peter Lum's The >>>>>> Purple Barrier, or Robert Silverberg's The Long Rampart or Arthur
Waldron's The Great Wall of China : from history to myth, and you find >>>>>> all the ingredients for a proper design-based theories:
- some traits of the wall are explained by the shifting motives and >>>>>> intentions of the designer, explanations of the form "This part of the >>>>>> wall was build at this position because the designer was concerned about >>>>>> X" - with independent evidence that the designer was, indeed, concerned >>>>>> about X. A typical example is a planning document by Prime Minister, Kao >>>>>> Lu (from ca. 502) that outlined his arguments in favor of the "five >>>>>> benefits of long walls.
- some traits of the wall are explained by the technology available (or >>>>>> unavailable) to the designer "this part of the wall has a foundation of >>>>>> roughly hewn stone, while the rest is bricks. This is because the
limited road work made transport of stones difficult, which is why even >>>>>> though they are as a material better suited, bricks which could be build >>>>>> on site are more often used.
- over time, studies of the great wall have taught us more about the >>>>>> designer, we now know much more about them than even 20 years ago. In >>>>>> particular we have become much better to assign stretches of wall to >>>>>> individual rulers or high ranking civil servants. We have also learned >>>>>> more about the shifting relations between the nomads and the settled >>>>>> population.
Now show me any, or ideally all, of these with ID design "theories", and >>>>>> we are cooking: explain a given trait of a species by the motives and >>>>>> tools of the designer (independently evidenced), and how our knowledge >>>>>> of the designer has improved in the last decades by analyzing the
objects of their design
Thanks! :o)
There is by the way another lesson to be learned from the great wall, >>>> or rather its study, that is sort of relevant for our discussion. Only >>>> around a quarter of the Ming Wall still exists. The photos that you
normally see, and which shape most people's impression of what the great >>>> wall is, are from these 25% or so. That lead to widespread
misconceptions, which until the early 20th century also dominated
academia.
In this vision, the Wall was one big entity, that was build "from
scratch", as a singular engineering feast, and marked a shift in the
wider political stance: from one of expansion towards a defensive stance >>>> against nomad populations.
But that overlooks that the preservation of the Wall was heavily biased >>>> towards the most solid sections, build with the most lasting materials - >>>> and that often also meant a) the relatively younger parts and b) the
strategically most important ones.
The reality was therefore much more mixed - older, much simpler walls
made from pressed earth and/or wood were getting linked up, or sometimes >>>> reinforced. Sometimes there were substantive gaps (mainly a string of
watchtowers only), often incorporating natural features such as rivers >>>> and mountains. (there is this popular myth that the wall can be seen
from the moon - well, if you count rivers and mountains as part of the >>>> wall, maybe, but not the brick-and-mortar wall) To confuse matters even >>>> more, there is a much younger wall, the "willow palisade wall" of which >>>> even less remains: simply because it consists simply of willows, planted >>>> closely together and their branches then connected with some material. >>>> They extended the "brick and mortar" walls long after these had stopped >>>> doing their job (due to location, mainly)
Maybe you see where I'm going with this: If we only had the
archeological evidence to guide us, it would look as if the walls
suddenly appeared, in a very sophisticated form, and then equally
suddenly disappeared. Sounds familiar? But this is just an artefact of >>>> the way in which the environment "sampled" the wall - the older, more
primitive precursors on which it was build simply disappeared without
leaving (much of a) trace, precisely because they were more simple, less >>>> structured and sophisticated. How do we know they were there? Partly
because of sheer luck - some written accounts were discovered that were >>>> older than the previous documentation. And our methods also got better, >>>> in particular aerial archeology now allows us to identify disruptions in >>>> the landscape from human activity that were previously impossible.
You can transfer this easily to the Cambrian explosion ("the Ming Wall", >>>> in the analogy): The simper an ancestor, the less likely it is to be
preserved. And whether or not we can find any depends a) on luck
(looking at the right place, was with the documents) and also
potentially the technology available to us. "Absence of ancestral
structures", in both cases, can simply mean either a) none of them were >>>> preserved, but this is as to be expected because they were, by
definition, simpler; or b) have been preserved by at places we haven't >>>> looked at yet or c) have been preserved, but we don't have the equipment >>>> to see them (yet). What it does not allow is the inference that they did >>>> not exist.
PreCambrian(Edcarian era). What you offer is attempted
explanations or excuses.
Well, yes and no. It is an explanation, to the extend that one is
necessary. That is, everyone who is involved with historical research of
any type, be it about human history, pre-history or the history of life
etc could have told you even before the project starts that there will
be inevitably a point where data gets very sparse so that accounts get
more and more conjectural and coarse grained, and eventually runs out
entirely.
That for a long time, that was the Cambrian is a contingent fact, but
merely instantiates a pattern that we encounter in all disciplines, and
in that sense was predictable. And as others told you, the dual factors,
luck and better technology, has by now given us at least some data of
even older life, so it looks less and less abrupt as research continues,
which is also what we should expect (or rather, can sometimes hope for -
eventually all data will with logical necessity dry up the further we go
back in history)
they have found very good preserved fossils in the Cambrian, some with
their organs conserved. But in the strata just below they do find embro
of sponges
The other lesson links the wall story to your monkey example. What of an >>>> alien who knows nothing about humans finds the same evidence of the
Walls as we have? Well, if they are similar enough to us, they may
correctly identify the concept of a wall. But they could then as well
infer that the rivers and mountains were also made by the same
architects - without knowing who they were and what their abilities was, >>>> no way to tell the difference, they both serve the same purpose.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/softbodied-fossils-from-the-shipai-formation-lower-cambrian-of-the-three-gorge-area-south-china/D936E93438D014254EE56349B07FE3E8
You have plenty of things around that we all agree are designed (because weI've pointed out on numerous occasions, that design is the better of two
know who the designer was and how they did it), roads, cathedrals, cars,
computers, stone tools, musical instruments, paintings, and we also have lots
of things around us which we generally agree we not designed, mountains,
rivers, tornadoes, stalactites, snowflakes, geodites, wildfires, etc. So it
would certainly be reasonable to try to develop a set of diagnostic criteria
to distinguish the things we agree are designed from the things we agree are
not designed, without making any reference to our knowledge of the specific
designers and processes involved.
You've made a couple of attempts. You suggested that things are designed if
they are conserved over long periods of time. But that fails because some
things that are clearly not designed are conserved over long periods (e.g.
mountains, the sun) whereas some things that are not conserved over long
periods of time (e.g. computer software) are clearly designed. So that >>>>>>>> criterion will not work.
You also suggested that things that are designed appear suddenly. That does
not work because things like AIDS also appear suddenly (unless you think AIDS
was designed).
You suggested that reproduction is a hallmark of design, but pretty much
nothing that we know is designed reproduces itself, so that criterion fails,
too.
So you just need to work on a set of criteria that reliably distinguish things
we know are designed from things we know are not designed. Once you've shown
that that set of criteria work on the things for which we know whether they
were designed or not, then you can make the argument that those criteria can
be applied to the things we are arguing about (e.g. the bacterial flagellum,
the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian, the mammalian eye, etc). >>>>>>>>
possible explanations.
Or to put it another way, What the heck does time of appearance have to
do with design?
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:41:09 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:23:08 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>And why not? Don't believe in a deity, space aliens or time travelers! What's
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:33:08 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Surely, you realize that it's virtually impossible to override one's paradigm.
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>> intelligence
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>>>>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >>>>> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >>>>> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would
still be based on the available evidence.
Surely, you realize that what you say above applies to you as well.
And in this case. no intelligence ever greater than the spider monkey is >>> the paradigm.
My impression is that wouldn't be your paradigm. So why presume it
would be anybody else's paradigm, except as a convenient strawman to
evade the point?
left, since no intelligence greater than a spider monkey and it's known that >spider monkeys do not posses the native intelligent to design and build what >is observed.
I have on numerous occasions.Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least notFrequently, I've post our that I think that design is the better of two
the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for >>>> everything except design.
explanations for what has been observed.
Yes, and I acknowledged your frequently stated opinion. What you
*still* haven't done is explain on what basis you think design is the
better explanation. Why is that?
I think a excellent example is the abrupt
appearance, meaning the strata where compound animals with mouths,
guts, eyes, body parts are found in Cambrian strata and in preCambrian
the Edicaran nothing recognized as transituinal or intermediate between >Cambrian and lower strata. I think evolution in this case is based on faith >not evidence. I think the origin of life, itself and the Cambrian explosion >best is explained by design. I've seen nothing, but attempt to explain this >from an evidentiary or empirical reasoning: which so far has failed. There
is no justifiable reason to write off design on grounds that there is_no_ >deity,or intelligence apart from man. Except the argument there is no design so
a designer is unnecessary. And this is burrying one's head in the sand.
And as I've pointed out before evidence is generally unobjective, impartial >and numeral, therefore it has to be interpreted within one's own paradigm.And since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".That's an alternative, but there's usually the refusal to accept what one >>> observes is reality, that is, if it conflicts with one's paradigm
Once again, what you say above applies to you as well, which means you
describe a distinction without a difference.
I trry hard to be the exception.
As I've pointed ut before, I was not a
believer
intill the mid 1990's after reading a book entitled, "Evolution a Theory in >Crisis"
by Michael Denton, During my six+ years at the 2 different universities I >became
a skeptic; as cynic and I would harass faith even my own mother. a dedicated >Christian who I assused of deceiving me. THis broke heart, I never spoke to >her again for months, then one day my sister called and told me mother had >died. Not that I feel this is in any way on me, nevertheless to this day I >live with
a deep feeling of regret and shame.
On 1/15/23 6:53 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 10:09:16 PM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/13/23 5:28 PM, Ron Dean wrote:No, design stands alone, it followed, from the evidence for design,
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
First, it is the *job* of ID to find out stuff about the designer. If
you admit ID can't do that, you admit it is a failure from the start.
a designer is implied.
Design never stands alone. By definition, it is the product of a
designer. You need that designer, or at least some indications from it,
to establish design in the first place.
I consider Evolution an alternative explanation
by Darwin after he read the book 'Natural Theology" by wm. Paley
to write an anti- Pailey book and invent a naturalistic method to
accomplish the same results. Darwin is credited with fathering the
theory of evolution, but considering Darwin's admiration for Paley's
work he felt the desire to contravene Paley. So, in this regard he
owes a debt of gratitude to Paley.
Leaving aside the fact that that paragraph is fantasy on your part,
I guess you owe Darwin a debt of gratitude, too, for providing something
you desire to contravene. You would never have concluded design without >Darwin.
It would be like the doctor who announces, "I have ascertained with near >>> certainty that the patient is unwell. My job, therefore, is done." The >>> role of science is not simply to make pronouncements to mollifyNo, the job of the doctor is spelled out!
believers; it is to raise new questions and answer those questions, too. >>>
So is the job of scientist. Believers in intelligent design don't want
the job. They actively reject the job.
Second, any competent investigator *could* identify some properties ofI think reproduction is a clear example of design. Until recently, even if >> so today, humans were able to design a robot that could reproduce itself
the designer, if there was one, based on the evidence at hand. It is
only the absence of evidence for design that hinders such investigation. >>>
this would be only because of intelligence or programming.
Again you say, "Life looks very different from what we know about
design; therefore it must be designed." Evidence obviously does not
enter into your conclusion.
Third, you keep saying that ID can identify design. All the empiricalIn my view, the sudden appearence in the Cambrian without any transitional >> fossils leading up to the huge numbers of phyla, classes, ---species that
evidence to date shows overwhelmingly that it cannot. You make a big
deal out the lack of Precambrian fossils, but you somehow miss the
absence, at least as prominent, of evidence indicating design.
appeared in the Cambrian strata complete with functioning body parts,
including compound eyes such as dragon flies an bees have strongly implies >> intelligent design.
And even more striking is the appearence of massive, innumerical amounts of >> information( know how) required for the formation of these varied animal
phyla.
When and how did this highly complex information arise? I strongly suspect >> that only one's own paradigm overides this evidence.
Now you have some homework. Assuming what you said above is true and
that it points to design, what does that tell you about the designer?
And once you have answers to that question, how can you test those
against further evidence?
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:06:32 GMT, the following appeared in[Silence, or at best no objective evaluation criteria,
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:You have not identified a way in which design can be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com><snip>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need
to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision
to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
unambiguously separated from non-design; examples of "looks
like" aren't criteria. How you "think" things should happen,
how you imagine reality to work, and arguments from
incredulity or ignorance, are irrelevant. You need a
*step-by step* process by which an unknown can be
objectively evaluated, and you *still* haven't produced one.
On 2023-01-16 16:50:18 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
On 1/15/23 7:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 11:48:20 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>> [...]
See above, in Bill Rogers' post? He stated "...you have toBill Rogers is not the first or only person to bring up this issue.
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably
distinguish designed things from non-designed things"
Once more you failed to address this requirement, as I noted
you continue to do. Shall I conclude that you have no way to
test for the presence of design, and can only fall back on
this sort of irrelevant blather? It doesn't matter *what*
Darwin said, and it doesn't matter whether you see
transitional fossils; all that matters is whether you can
specify criteria which unambiguously indicate whether
something is the result of conscious design.
And I have offered my answer. First, I think in some cases
that design is the _best_ explanation for what we observe.
The operative words in that last sentence being "I think." Your
worldview affects your conclusion (as you yourself have repeatedly
pointed out), and your failure to provide any objective evidence for
design makes it clear that the *only* reason you conclude design is
because you *want* to conclude design.
I think that reproduction is an exellent example of what could
be considered as deliberate, purposefull design by some
intelligent agent(s). At this point in time we cannot design
a robot that can reproduce itself, considering all that is
required.
Why would we want to design a self-reproducing robot?
Curiously enough, though, various people (starting with John von
Neumann, I think) have tried to do just that. I tend to agree with you
that there is not much point, and that such a device would be of little >practical use. However, I think the motivation has not so much been to
make something useful but to better understand the theory of >self-reproduction..
The manufacture processes we use are far more efficient. And
self-replicating robots would likely get in our way, dismantling
working products to get their own raw materials. (A 2016 science
fiction story by Cat Rambo, "Red in Tooth and Cog", explores the issue
of self-reproducing robots. Read it if you get a chance.)
Self-reproduction is easily the biggest difference between design and
evolution. Evolution uses it and operates to encourage it. Design
generally avoids it and operates to discourage it. If you wanted to
point to the best objective evidence *against* design, you could not do
better than to point at reproduction.
Which brings us back to my first point. That you would look at strong
evidence against design and call it evidence for design shows that your
conclusions are not based on evidence at all.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 17:19:56 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:41:09 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:23:08 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>And why not? Don't believe in a deity, space aliens or time travelers! What's
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:33:08 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Surely, you realize that it's virtually impossible to override one's paradigm.
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>>> intelligence
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>>>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>>>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>>>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would
still be based on the available evidence.
Surely, you realize that what you say above applies to you as well.
And in this case. no intelligence ever greater than the spider monkey is >>>> the paradigm.
My impression is that wouldn't be your paradigm. So why presume it
would be anybody else's paradigm, except as a convenient strawman to
evade the point?
left, since no intelligence greater than a spider monkey and it's known that >> spider monkeys do not posses the native intelligent to design and build what >> is observed.
Since you asked, your hypothetical above is based on jumping to
conclusions based on a *lack* of evidence. The Design Inference has
the same problem. You're welcome.
I have on numerous occasions.Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least notFrequently, I've post our that I think that design is the better of two >>>> explanations for what has been observed.
the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for >>>>> everything except design.
Yes, and I acknowledged your frequently stated opinion. What you
*still* haven't done is explain on what basis you think design is the
better explanation. Why is that?
Once again, you have not. Instead, you have done what you do below,
to repeat opinions without basis, and assert facts without even trying
to connect the dots between those facts and your opinions.
Once again, your expressed facts about Cambrian strata describe a
*lack* of data, consistent with both purposeful design *and* unguided evolution. You can't logically claim your fact as evidence for
Design, or even for "abrupt appearance". And you *still* don't
explain how "abrupt appearance" is evidence for design.
Do you really not understand the difference between "opinion" and
"fact", or what "evidence" and "explain" mean?
I think a excellent example is the abrupt
appearance, meaning the strata where compound animals with mouths,
guts, eyes, body parts are found in Cambrian strata and in preCambrian
the Edicaran nothing recognized as transituinal or intermediate between
Cambrian and lower strata. I think evolution in this case is based on faith >> not evidence. I think the origin of life, itself and the Cambrian explosion >> best is explained by design. I've seen nothing, but attempt to explain this >>from an evidentiary or empirical reasoning: which so far has failed. There
is no justifiable reason to write off design on grounds that there is_no_
deity,or intelligence apart from man. Except the argument there is no design so
a designer is unnecessary. And this is burrying one's head in the sand.
And as I've pointed out before evidence is generally unobjective, impartial >> and numeral, therefore it has to be interpreted within one's own paradigm. >> I trry hard to be the exception.And since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".That's an alternative, but there's usually the refusal to accept what one >>>> observes is reality, that is, if it conflicts with one's paradigm
Once again, what you say above applies to you as well, which means you
describe a distinction without a difference.
I acknowledge and applaud your efforts, but you haven't succeeded.
There's a saying: "People are easy to fool, and the easiest person to
fool is yourself." I and other posters are telling you that your
claimed explanations aren't even wrong. Even though you think your explanations convince you, I know you know that to others, they don't
even qualify as explanations.
As I've pointed ut before, I was not a
believer
intill the mid 1990's after reading a book entitled, "Evolution a Theory in >> Crisis"
by Michael Denton, During my six+ years at the 2 different universities I
became
a skeptic; as cynic and I would harass faith even my own mother. a dedicated >> Christian who I assused of deceiving me. THis broke heart, I never spoke to >> her again for months, then one day my sister called and told me mother had >> died. Not that I feel this is in any way on me, nevertheless to this day I >> live with
a deep feeling of regret and shame.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
The Cambrian makes me want to go back to the origins of multicellularity.
Yes, they're transitional fossils. Of course we can't say that they're
directly ancestral to anything, because there's no way to distinguish
ancestors from the cousins of ancestors. But they're definitely
transitional, and in fact both the ichnofossils and the small shellies
increase in variety and complexity from the latest Ediacaran through
Cambrian Stage 3. Furthere, they tell us that the sudden appearance of
trilobites and the Chengjiang fauna is an artifact of preservation,
because we have no well-preserved body fossils of the organisms that
made the ichnofossils. This simply refutes Meyer's claim that the fossil
record is complete, and that if these ancestors existed we should have
seen them. Taphonomy is another subject on which both you and he are
ignorant.
It has been decades since I read Leo Buss’s provocative book, but much has happened since. Sean Carroll’s former student Nicole King is researching our sister group the choanoflagellates— their penchant for colonization and the requisite cell adhesion and signaling involved. Also they have their
own microbiome, which is a trendy thought. Fascinating stuff:
https://youtu.be/1v6cgSkiHik
https://youtu.be/jEn68Vy4RN4
Then we can explore the Baupläne of the Cambrian with the weaponizer of ignorance.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:42:55 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe so, but I try hard not to be biased.Here one's paradigm takes control and dictates the conclusions.
So on what basis has your paradigm not taken control of you and
dictated your conclusions?
This is _not_ about me, but rather in reference to the mindset of the other >person(s) to whom I'm referring.I suspect atheism is your paradigm: am I wrong?
Once again you raise the issue of atheism. So once again, I point out
that necessarily implies your paradigm is that your purposeful
designer is God, despite your oft-repeated denials.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
The Cambrian makes me want to go back to the origins of multicellularity.
Yes, they're transitional fossils. Of course we can't say that they're
directly ancestral to anything, because there's no way to distinguish
ancestors from the cousins of ancestors. But they're definitely
transitional, and in fact both the ichnofossils and the small shellies
increase in variety and complexity from the latest Ediacaran through
Cambrian Stage 3. Furthere, they tell us that the sudden appearance of
trilobites and the Chengjiang fauna is an artifact of preservation,
because we have no well-preserved body fossils of the organisms that
made the ichnofossils. This simply refutes Meyer's claim that the fossil
record is complete, and that if these ancestors existed we should have
seen them. Taphonomy is another subject on which both you and he are
ignorant.
It has been decades since I read Leo Buss’s provocative book, but much has >happened since. Sean Carroll’s former student Nicole King is researching >our sister group the choanoflagellates— their penchant for colonization and >the requisite cell adhesion and signaling involved. Also they have their
own microbiome, which is a trendy thought. Fascinating stuff:
https://youtu.be/1v6cgSkiHik
https://youtu.be/jEn68Vy4RN4
Then we can explore the Baupläne of the Cambrian with the weaponizer of >ignorance.
On 1/16/23 11:01 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 17:19:56 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:41:09 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:23:08 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>And why not? Don't believe in a deity, space aliens or time travelers! What's
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:33:08 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Surely, you realize that it's virtually impossible to override one's paradigm.
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>>>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>>>> intelligence
wrote:Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance. >>>>>>>>
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would >>>>>> still be based on the available evidence.
Surely, you realize that what you say above applies to you as well.
And in this case. no intelligence ever greater than the spider monkey is >>>>> the paradigm.
My impression is that wouldn't be your paradigm. So why presume it
would be anybody else's paradigm, except as a convenient strawman to
evade the point?
left, since no intelligence greater than a spider monkey and it's known that
spider monkeys do not posses the native intelligent to design and build what
is observed.
Since you asked, your hypothetical above is based on jumping to
conclusions based on a *lack* of evidence. The Design Inference has
the same problem. You're welcome.
I have on numerous occasions.Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least not >>>>>> the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for >>>>>> everything except design.Frequently, I've post our that I think that design is the better of two >>>>> explanations for what has been observed.
Yes, and I acknowledged your frequently stated opinion. What you
*still* haven't done is explain on what basis you think design is the
better explanation. Why is that?
Once again, you have not. Instead, you have done what you do below,
to repeat opinions without basis, and assert facts without even trying
to connect the dots between those facts and your opinions.
Once again, your expressed facts about Cambrian strata describe a
*lack* of data, consistent with both purposeful design *and* unguided
evolution. You can't logically claim your fact as evidence for
Design, or even for "abrupt appearance". And you *still* don't
explain how "abrupt appearance" is evidence for design.
Do you really not understand the difference between "opinion" and
"fact", or what "evidence" and "explain" mean?
Note, once more, that his "expressed facts" are not actually facts.
I think a excellent example is the abrupt
appearance, meaning the strata where compound animals with mouths,
guts, eyes, body parts are found in Cambrian strata and in preCambrian
the Edicaran nothing recognized as transituinal or intermediate between
Cambrian and lower strata. I think evolution in this case is based on faith >>> not evidence. I think the origin of life, itself and the Cambrian explosion >>> best is explained by design. I've seen nothing, but attempt to explain this >>>from an evidentiary or empirical reasoning: which so far has failed. There >>> is no justifiable reason to write off design on grounds that there is_no_ >>> deity,or intelligence apart from man. Except the argument there is no design so
a designer is unnecessary. And this is burrying one's head in the sand.
And as I've pointed out before evidence is generally unobjective, impartial >>> and numeral, therefore it has to be interpreted within one's own paradigm. >>> I trry hard to be the exception.And since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".That's an alternative, but there's usually the refusal to accept what one >>>>> observes is reality, that is, if it conflicts with one's paradigm
Once again, what you say above applies to you as well, which means you >>>> describe a distinction without a difference.
I acknowledge and applaud your efforts, but you haven't succeeded.
There's a saying: "People are easy to fool, and the easiest person to
fool is yourself." I and other posters are telling you that your
claimed explanations aren't even wrong. Even though you think your
explanations convince you, I know you know that to others, they don't
even qualify as explanations.
As I've pointed ut before, I was not a
believer
intill the mid 1990's after reading a book entitled, "Evolution a Theory in >>> Crisis"
by Michael Denton, During my six+ years at the 2 different universities I >>> became
a skeptic; as cynic and I would harass faith even my own mother. a dedicated
Christian who I assused of deceiving me. THis broke heart, I never spoke to >>> her again for months, then one day my sister called and told me mother had >>> died. Not that I feel this is in any way on me, nevertheless to this day I >>> live with
a deep feeling of regret and shame.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:24:27 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/16/23 11:01 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 17:19:56 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:41:09 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:23:08 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>And why not? Don't believe in a deity, space aliens or time travelers! What's
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:33:08 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Surely, you realize that it's virtually impossible to override one's paradigm.
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future
wrote:Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of
plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed. >>>>>>>>>>>
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance. >>>>>>>>>
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that
designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty
obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any
information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's
exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer. >>>>>>>>>
mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>>>>> intelligence
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads,
railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with
these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would >>>>>>> still be based on the available evidence.
Surely, you realize that what you say above applies to you as well.
And in this case. no intelligence ever greater than the spider monkey is >>>>>> the paradigm.
My impression is that wouldn't be your paradigm. So why presume it
would be anybody else's paradigm, except as a convenient strawman to >>>>> evade the point?
left, since no intelligence greater than a spider monkey and it's known that
spider monkeys do not posses the native intelligent to design and build what
is observed.
Since you asked, your hypothetical above is based on jumping to
conclusions based on a *lack* of evidence. The Design Inference has
the same problem. You're welcome.
I have on numerous occasions.Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least not >>>>>>> the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for >>>>>>> everything except design.Frequently, I've post our that I think that design is the better of two >>>>>> explanations for what has been observed.
Yes, and I acknowledged your frequently stated opinion. What you
*still* haven't done is explain on what basis you think design is the >>>>> better explanation. Why is that?
Once again, you have not. Instead, you have done what you do below,
to repeat opinions without basis, and assert facts without even trying
to connect the dots between those facts and your opinions.
Once again, your expressed facts about Cambrian strata describe a
*lack* of data, consistent with both purposeful design *and* unguided
evolution. You can't logically claim your fact as evidence for
Design, or even for "abrupt appearance". And you *still* don't
explain how "abrupt appearance" is evidence for design.
Do you really not understand the difference between "opinion" and
"fact", or what "evidence" and "explain" mean?
Note, once more, that his "expressed facts" are not actually facts.
Once again, my experience is it's futile to focus on precise pricing
when someone can't/won't converse coherently about currency,
metaphorically speaking. Apparently your mileage varies.
I think a excellent example is the abrupt
appearance, meaning the strata where compound animals with mouths,
guts, eyes, body parts are found in Cambrian strata and in preCambrian >>>> the Edicaran nothing recognized as transituinal or intermediate between >>>> Cambrian and lower strata. I think evolution in this case is based on faith
not evidence. I think the origin of life, itself and the Cambrian explosion
best is explained by design. I've seen nothing, but attempt to explain this
from an evidentiary or empirical reasoning: which so far has failed. There >>>> is no justifiable reason to write off design on grounds that there is_no_ >>>> deity,or intelligence apart from man. Except the argument there is no design so
a designer is unnecessary. And this is burrying one's head in the sand. >>>>
And as I've pointed out before evidence is generally unobjective, impartialAnd since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".That's an alternative, but there's usually the refusal to accept what one
observes is reality, that is, if it conflicts with one's paradigm
Once again, what you say above applies to you as well, which means you >>>>> describe a distinction without a difference.
and numeral, therefore it has to be interpreted within one's own paradigm. >>>> I trry hard to be the exception.
I acknowledge and applaud your efforts, but you haven't succeeded.
There's a saying: "People are easy to fool, and the easiest person to
fool is yourself." I and other posters are telling you that your
claimed explanations aren't even wrong. Even though you think your
explanations convince you, I know you know that to others, they don't
even qualify as explanations.
As I've pointed ut before, I was not a
believer
intill the mid 1990's after reading a book entitled, "Evolution a Theory in
Crisis"
by Michael Denton, During my six+ years at the 2 different universities I >>>> became
a skeptic; as cynic and I would harass faith even my own mother. a dedicated
Christian who I assused of deceiving me. THis broke heart, I never spoke to
her again for months, then one day my sister called and told me mother had >>>> died. Not that I feel this is in any way on me, nevertheless to this day I >>>> live with
a deep feeling of regret and shame.
Note, once more, that his "expressed facts" are not actually facts.
Once again, my experience is it's futile to focus on precise pricing
when someone can't/won't converse coherently about currency,
metaphorically speaking. Apparently your mileage varies.
I would suppose that any argument proceeding from false premises is
futile. If you're accepting his premise purely for the sake of argument,
you should at least mention that. And if you're saying that even if his >claims of fact were correct, his conclusion would not follow, it would
be well to point that out explicitly.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:33:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
Note, once more, that his "expressed facts" are not actually facts.
Once again, my experience is it's futile to focus on precise pricing
when someone can't/won't converse coherently about currency,
metaphorically speaking. Apparently your mileage varies.
I would suppose that any argument proceeding from false premises is
futile. If you're accepting his premise purely for the sake of argument,
you should at least mention that. And if you're saying that even if his
claims of fact were correct, his conclusion would not follow, it would
be well to point that out explicitly.
All that you say *I* should do, or should have done, focuses on his *expressed* facts, which you already noted. That his *expressed*
facts are inaccurate or misleading or even flat-out wrong has been
pointed out many times by many posters for many years, in vain. If
you didn't know this, now you know.
Once again, the larger point is that his facts don't inform his claims
aka they're worg. You might as well tell me to arrange deck chairs on
the Titanic. Go practice your Karen act on someone else.
On 1/16/23 10:36 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:33:10 -0800, John HarshmanAh, so you hope to make a point to Ron. How's that working out for you
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
Note, once more, that his "expressed facts" are not actually facts.
Once again, my experience is it's futile to focus on precise pricing
when someone can't/won't converse coherently about currency,
metaphorically speaking. Apparently your mileage varies.
I would suppose that any argument proceeding from false premises is
futile. If you're accepting his premise purely for the sake of argument, >>> you should at least mention that. And if you're saying that even if his
claims of fact were correct, his conclusion would not follow, it would
be well to point that out explicitly.
All that you say *I* should do, or should have done, focuses on his
*expressed* facts, which you already noted. That his *expressed*
facts are inaccurate or misleading or even flat-out wrong has been
pointed out many times by many posters for many years, in vain. If
you didn't know this, now you know.
Once again, the larger point is that his facts don't inform his claims
aka they're worg. You might as well tell me to arrange deck chairs on
the Titanic. Go practice your Karen act on someone else.
so far?
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 06:13:35 -0800, John Harshman
Ah, so you hope to make a point to Ron. How's that working out for youSince you asked, ISTM as well as your efforts. You're welcome.
so far?
Apparently you *still* don't realize I'm not the only poster
presenting my line of reasoning, else you would be trolling them as
well.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 06:13:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/16/23 10:36 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:33:10 -0800, John HarshmanAh, so you hope to make a point to Ron. How's that working out for you
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
Note, once more, that his "expressed facts" are not actually facts. >>>>>
Once again, my experience is it's futile to focus on precise pricing >>>>> when someone can't/won't converse coherently about currency,
metaphorically speaking. Apparently your mileage varies.
I would suppose that any argument proceeding from false premises is
futile. If you're accepting his premise purely for the sake of argument, >>>> you should at least mention that. And if you're saying that even if his >>>> claims of fact were correct, his conclusion would not follow, it would >>>> be well to point that out explicitly.
All that you say *I* should do, or should have done, focuses on his
*expressed* facts, which you already noted. That his *expressed*
facts are inaccurate or misleading or even flat-out wrong has been
pointed out many times by many posters for many years, in vain. If
you didn't know this, now you know.
Once again, the larger point is that his facts don't inform his claims
aka they're worg. You might as well tell me to arrange deck chairs on
the Titanic. Go practice your Karen act on someone else.
so far?
Since you asked, ISTM as well as your efforts. You're welcome.
Apparently you *still* don't realize I'm not the only poster
presenting my line of reasoning, else you would be trolling them as
well.
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making
any impresion on his impressions.
On Jan 9, 2023 at 5:41:09 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 06:23:08 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>And why not? Don't believe in a deity, space aliens or time travelers! What's
wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 6:33:08 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:40:58 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Surely, you realize that it's virtually impossible to override one's paradigm.
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2023 at 6:54:10 PM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:45:42 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:Just for the sake of argument, 10's of thousands of years in the future >>>>> mankind has become extinct and there is absolutely no evidence that an >>>>> intelligence
On Jan 4, 2023 at 10:31:52 PM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 1/4/23 5:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:It's not the same, the history of autos are known; paved roads the Romans were
[...]Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared almost instantly (from >
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these
organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions. Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
So you assert that appearing with no known history is indicative of >>>>>>>> design. So the long history of automobiles, and even longer history of >>>>>>>> plows and paved roads, suggests that they were not designed.
first;
the plow I don't know, but I doubt there is anyone who seriously questions the
origin
of the plow. But this doesn't account for the origin of phyla during the
Cambrian.
Which Is of a much greater importance. This comes just about as important as
the
origin of life itself.
And theHere again, it's not the same and not of the same importance.
sudden appearance of AIDS and red sprites (both in the 1980s) shows that
they were designed.
Let me try to explain why the stuff about plows and roads is important. Of
course we know that the roads and plows were designed. Even if, in a specific
case we cannot identify the specific designer of a given paved road, it is so
similar to other paved roads for which we have evidence of a designer that
there's no doubt. Same is true of computer programs - nobody brings them up in
this discussion as though there were any doubt about who designed them. Like
the roads and plow, we know they are designed because we have independent
evidence of the designers, we can find workshops where they were made, etc.
The key thing, though, is we already know roughly who the designer is and we
have a good idea of the methods used.
But imagine we had no idea. Imagine we had never known anyone who designed a
paved road or a plow or who wrote software. Imagine all we had to go on was
the thing itself. In that case, we'd need to do what you are trying to do for
biology and the natural world. We would have to articulate a set of diagnostic
criteria to identify designed things. Now you have proposed something like
that - you say it is clear to you that hox genes were designed because they
have stayed conserved for millions of years. So you are suggesting that >>>>>> designed things can be recognized because they are conserved for millions of
years. That will not work though. Mountains, which I think we all agree are
not designed, are conserved for very long periods of time, so your criterion
would fail there. On the other hand, software programs, which are pretty >>>>>> obviously designed, are changed frequently. Your criterion would reject them
as being designed.
The argument is not about whether mountains or computer programs are designed,
the argument is about whether you have provided a reasonable criterion for
identifying something as designed or not designed in the absence of any >>>>>> information about a specific designer. You have not done so. The criteria you
have offered do not reliably distinguish designed from non-designed things.
When we give you counterexamples you protest that, "Of course we know the
paved roads are designed because we know who designed them," but that's >>>>>> exactly the problem. If your criteria fail in the case of roads, and you need
to rely on independent knowledge of the designer to correct that failure, your
criteria are obviously not reliable in the absence of independent evidence of
the designer. Thw things you call "red herrings" are simply examples where
your criteria fail to correctly distinguish design from non-design. >>>>>>
Basically your argument is aesthetic. You have faith. The beauty and >>>>>> complexity of the world enhances that faith. That's great,a s far as it goes.
But that's not a scientific argument in favor of a designer.
greater than the spider monkey is found, to have ever existed, on the largely
barren desert planet earth. Yet, in the deserts remains of cities, roads, >>>>> railroad tracks
are found even computers are found. Yet, the discoverers are convinced that
spider monkeys could never build what they find. How would they deal with >>>>> these
facts? Just ignore them; or write them off as illusions; or deside, with no
other possible option, this has to have been caused somehow by natural means.
I would think probably the latter in light of their convinced mindset of no
intelligence ever on the planet..
Your presumptive discovers' inference might be wrong, but it would
still be based on the available evidence.
Surely, you realize that what you say above applies to you as well.
And in this case. no intelligence ever greater than the spider monkey is >>> the paradigm.
My impression is that wouldn't be your paradigm. So why presume it
would be anybody else's paradigm, except as a convenient strawman to
evade the point?
left, since no intelligence greater than a spider monkey and it's known that >spider monkeys do not posses the native intelligent to design and build what >is observed.
I have on numerous occasions. I think a excellent example is the abrupt >appearance, meaning the strata where compound animals with mouths,
Keep in mind that even the best inference isn't proof, at least notFrequently, I've post our that I think that design is the better of two
the kind of exact, detailed, step-by-step empiric proof you demand for >>>> everything except design.
explanations for what has been observed.
Yes, and I acknowledged your frequently stated opinion. What you
*still* haven't done is explain on what basis you think design is the
better explanation. Why is that?
guts, eyes, body parts are found in Cambrian strata and in preCambrian
the Edicaran nothing recognized as transituinal or intermediate between >Cambrian and lower strata. I think evolution in this case is based on faith >not evidence. I think the origin of life, itself and the Cambrian explosion >best is explained by design. I've seen nothing, but attempt to explain this >from an evidentiary or empirical reasoning: which so far has failed. There
is no justifiable reason to write off design on grounds that there is_no_ >deity,
or intelligence apart from man. Except the argument there is no design so
a designer is unnecessary. And this is burrying one's head in the sand.
And as I've pointed out before evidence is generally unobjective, impartial >and numeral, therefore it has to be interpreted within one's own paradigm.
And since you asked, consider another answer: "We don't know".That's an alternative, but there's usually the refusal to accept what one >>> observes is reality, that is, if it conflicts with one's paradigm
Once again, what you say above applies to you as well, which means you
describe a distinction without a difference.
I trry hard to be the exception. As I've pointed ut before, I was not a >believer
intill the mid 1990's after reading a book entitled, "Evolution a Theory in >Crisis"
by Michael Denton, During my six+ years at the 2 different universities I >became
a skeptic; as cynic and I would harass faith even my own mother. a dedicated >Christian who I assused of deceiving me. THis broke heart, I never spoke to >her again for months, then one day my sister called and told me mother had >died. Not that I feel this is in any way on me, nevertheless to this day I >live with
a deep feeling of regret and shame.
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
As a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian
ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Francis Collins does not seem far out among protestants to me. It's possibly true that, world-wide, the majority of Anglicans reject evolution, but certainly in the US and the UK a majority of them accept it. Most of them may not think about it in as much depth as Collins, so he is out of the ordinary in that way, perhaps. And many clergy in the non-evangelical protestant churches would be "far out" theologically compared to many of their congregants; you can find Anglican priests who will say on the record that the
Resurrection was not physical.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making
any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian
ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he
was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic.
That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but
to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
ISTM odd to claim we have reached the beginning.
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's personal
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making >>> any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 1:05:51 PM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote:When answering questions regarding religion, I consider myself Methodist
On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 03:00:48 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-5, martin...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 18:29:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenThe suggestion that a majority of Anglicans worldwide reject
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
On 2023-01-14 14:58:37 +0000, Bob Casanova said:As a Catholic, I differ with Francis Collins on some of his religious
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:06:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and >>>>>>> Francis Collins to reject ID?
Not to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
committed Christians (even if one of them didn't live up to Christian >>>>> ideals). Dobzhansky died well before ID was a thing, but he was
committed to a scientific view of evolution, and I would be very
surprised if he had lived long enough and greeted ID as just what he >>>>> was looking for. As for Ayala, he said that ID was blasphemy.
Notice that of the four names mentioned we have two far-out
Protestants, one Russian Orthodox Christian, and one Roman Catholic. >>>>> That should be enough for anyone. You may object to the "far-out", but >>>>> to a former Anglican like myself that's how they appear.
views but I certainly would not regard him as a "far-out" Protestant.
Francis Collins does not seem far out among protestants to me. It's possibly
true that, world-wide, the majority of Anglicans reject evolution, but
certainly in the US and the UK a majority of them accept it. Most of them >>> may not think about it in as much depth as Collins, so he is out of the
ordinary in that way, perhaps. And many clergy in the non-evangelical
protestant churches would be "far out" theologically compared to many of >>> their congregants; you can find Anglican priests who will say on the record >>> that the Resurrection was not physical.
evolution, surprises me a bit - have you a source for it?
No source, other than the personal experience of living in Ghana for 4 years. 2/3's of Anglicans are African, and my experience of African Anglicans was that they are much more theologically conservative with respect to things like
creationism vs evolution, and also female clergy, gay clergy, gay marriage, than are the UK-based leaders of the denomination. A majority of UK and US based Anglicans accept evolution (easy enough to find surveys on that) but I haven't found a survey specifically of African Anglicans (that's why I hedged with the phrase "possibly true"). Lots of white Anglicans forget that they are
minority in their denomination.
There clearly are different views in the USA. I found this article
interesting:
https://anglicancompass.com/creation-evolution-and-pastors/
"Yet rather than advocating the simple creed, and then making space
for believers to discuss varies theories, some parishes identify as
“Creationist” or “Intelligent Design” or pro “Theistic Evolution.” But
our churches shouldn’t be presenting one or the other interpretation
or theory as if it is the only authoritative way to understand
creation. That’s not the pastor’s job. We weren’t ordained to promote >> creationism, but creed. We aren’t called to preach evolutionary
biology, but to preach Bible basics. Our job is to present God the
Father as creator of heaven and earth. Period."
("Anglican Compass is led by priests in the Anglican Church in North
America. But we are not an official publishing arm of the ACNA". )
Don't expect a rational or logical answer. I believe we've
reached the "flounder around, ignore the questions and fire
off irrelevancies" part of the thread, which will again be
followed by extended absence and a later return to previous
unsupported assertions with no indication that they have
been addressed previously.
Good answer. I feel sure you're right, at least about your first
sentence, and the second as far as the comma.
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant!
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making >>> any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
No allowance for one's personal conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's personal
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making >>> any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 05:00:35 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2023 at 9:06:22 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>>> is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
However, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but
that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..." roundabout.
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse peopleIf I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares with design.
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 05:00:35 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares >with design.
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2023 at 9:06:22 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting design >I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer >for themselves.However, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but
that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..."
roundabout.
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:.................................
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 05:00:35 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2023 at 9:06:22 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares with design.
However, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..." roundabout.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting design
I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer for themselves.
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:<Snip>
On Jan 14, 2023 at 6:35:10 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean has not been specific ab
No, I've pointed out several times that there is no evidence which points to >> the..........................................................I think you are playing games with me!out what he means when he uses wordsNo Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt >>>>>>>>> appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms >>>>>>>>> literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or
between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between
transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era. >>>>>>>
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no
transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked >>>>>>> before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm >>>>>> is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
not evidence.
identity of the designer.
Well what you just wrote was "***naming*** the designer is just a matter of faith." I'm not really sure what you see as the key difference between naming and identifying.
My point is different, and it's a point you keep ignoring. All of the things which you say are evidence for design are ALSO evidence for specific characteristics of the designer. For example, if fine tuning of the physical constants is evidence of design, then it implies that the designer has the capacity to set the values of the physical constants and that the designer was
active at least 14 billion years ago. If the absence of transitional fossils between species is evidence of design, then the designer was active at each new speciation event, in other words active in millions of places and millions
of times over hundreds of millions of years. If the lack of a sufficiently detailed naturalistic account of the origin of life is evidence for design, then the designer was active on earth something like 4 billion years ago (and was incapable of tweaking the physical constants and laws of nature well enough to get life to arise spontaneously).
So, contrary to your repeated assertion, all the evidence you cite as evidence
for design is simultaneously evidence about the abilities and the time and place of action of the designer. You seem to think that if current science does not explain something then, bingo, ask the theologians. But that's not how design science, if there is such a thing, would work. IF science fails to explain something, and IF the correct explanation is that the designer made it
happen, then the characteristics of the unexplained something (physical constants, origin of life, bacterial flagellum), immediately give you information about the characteristics of the designer. And real scientists would use that information to make and refine models of the designer. For the nth time, it's not a question of identifying whether the designer is Yahweh, Brahma, Allah, or Jupiter, it's a question of nailing down the characteristics
of the designer - and all the evidence you cite as evidence for design is ALSO
evidence for the characteristics of the designer (or designers).
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all theI have attempted to do this on many occasions. I consider reproduction
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics
of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific
evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence
you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin
of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the >>> absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the
characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed, >>> would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not
specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the >>> models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest
evidence that they are not doing science.
an example of design. But not design itself, but the capacity to reproduce. >> Reproduction requires chemicals, matter and massive amounts of
information( know how) or intelligence. To program a robot to build
another robot does not work, since outside information, etc has to be
placed within it's reach. That is if it ever happens. Chemicals in a
lab requires outside help for parts, materials container etc.
I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. I and others, keep asking you to specify criteria you can use to distinguish between designed and non-designed things. Clearly "reproducing itself" is not a characteristic of most, maybe all, things we know to be designed. So listing "reproduction" as an example does not help your case. Indeed, you seem to be saying that if we built a robot able to replicate itself (something which would obviously be designed by
a known designer) that would not count as real reproduction.
And you continue to seem so unwilling to address them that I think you cannot come up with an answer that makes sense even to yourself.
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by >>>>> testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>>>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those
criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first
appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus >>>>> non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing >>> between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and >>> you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable >>> conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably
distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not.
Once again you avoid answering the question.
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil >>> would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific
about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a >>> transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only
reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
Once again, you avoid answering the question.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut
tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may >>> satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it >>> won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as
though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants
would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect >>>>> preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the >>>>> right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:06:32 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>You have not identified a way in which design can be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com><snip>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need
to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision
to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
unambiguously separated from non-design; examples of "looks
like" aren't criteria. How you "think" things should happen,
how you imagine reality to work, and arguments from
incredulity or ignorance, are irrelevant. You need a
*step-by step* process by which an unknown can be
objectively evaluated, and you *still* haven't produced one.
On Jan 16, 2023 at 7:30:27 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:<Snip>
On Jan 14, 2023 at 6:35:10 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean has not been specific ab
It's exactly the same!No, I've pointed out several times that there is no evidence which points to..........................................................I think you are playing games with me!out what he means when he uses wordsNo Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt >>>>>>>>>> appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt >>>>>>>>>> appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo.
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or >>>>>>>> between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between >>>>>>>> transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no >>>>>>>> transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against >>>>>>>> unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked >>>>>>>> before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
not evidence.
the
identity of the designer.
Well what you just wrote was "***naming*** the designer is just a matter of >> faith." I'm not really sure what you see as the key difference between naming
and identifying.
Actually, I think it's higher than species, I suspect that design was as high as phylum that occured at the beginning with the Early Cambrian.
My point is different, and it's a point you keep ignoring. All of the things >> which you say are evidence for design are ALSO evidence for specific
characteristics of the designer. For example, if fine tuning of the physical >> constants is evidence of design, then it implies that the designer has the >> capacity to set the values of the physical constants and that the designer was
active at least 14 billion years ago. If the absence of transitional fossils >> between species is evidence of design, then the designer was active at each >> new speciation event, in other words active in millions of places and millions
of times over hundreds of millions of years. If the lack of a sufficiently >> detailed naturalistic account of the origin of life is evidence for design, >> then the designer was active on earth something like 4 billion years ago (and
was incapable of tweaking the physical constants and laws of nature well
enough to get life to arise spontaneously).
So, contrary to your repeated assertion, all the evidence you cite as evidenceI would accept the Characteristics you described.
for design is simultaneously evidence about the abilities and the time and >> place of action of the designer. You seem to think that if current science >> does not explain something then, bingo, ask the theologians. But that's not >> how design science, if there is such a thing, would work. IF science fails to
explain something, and IF the correct explanation is that the designer made it
happen, then the characteristics of the unexplained something (physical
constants, origin of life, bacterial flagellum), immediately give you
information about the characteristics of the designer. And real scientists >> would use that information to make and refine models of the designer. For the
nth time, it's not a question of identifying whether the designer is Yahweh, >> Brahma, Allah, or Jupiter, it's a question of nailing down the characteristics
of the designer - and all the evidence you cite as evidence for design is ALSO
evidence for the characteristics of the designer (or designers).
Any time someone points to a transition, it's in reality an assumption. Darwin hoped transitional fossils would be found and his followers had the desire
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all theI have attempted to do this on many occasions. I consider reproduction
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics
of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific
evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence
you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin
of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the >>>> absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the
characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed, >>>> would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not >>>> specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the >>>> models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest >>>> evidence that they are not doing science.
an example of design. But not design itself, but the capacity to reproduce. >>> Reproduction requires chemicals, matter and massive amounts of
information( know how) or intelligence. To program a robot to build
another robot does not work, since outside information, etc has to be
placed within it's reach. That is if it ever happens. Chemicals in a
lab requires outside help for parts, materials container etc.
I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. I and others, keep asking you to >> specify criteria you can use to distinguish between designed and non-designed
things. Clearly "reproducing itself" is not a characteristic of most, maybe >> all, things we know to be designed. So listing "reproduction" as an example >> does not help your case. Indeed, you seem to be saying that if we built a
robot able to replicate itself (something which would obviously be designed by
a known designer) that would not count as real reproduction.
And you continue to seem so unwilling to address them that I think you cannot
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
come up with an answer that makes sense even to yourself.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by >>>>>> testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains, >>>>>> rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those
criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first
appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing >>>> between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and >>>> you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable >>>> conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably
distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not.
Once again you avoid answering the question.
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil >>>> would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific
about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a
transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only
reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
Once again, you avoid answering the question.
to find evidence in support of Darwin's theory in the location of intermediate
fossils.
But since some 99%+ of all animals, that ever lived went extinct without leaving any
decedents, the odds are overwhelming against any transitional fossils ever being
found, assuming they did exist. .
So, the question is: how can anyone know that what is offered as transitional fossils
is simply there "best in the field"?. The point is Darwins followers wanted to
find something,
anything that served the purpose.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut
tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may >>>> satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it >>>> won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as
though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants
would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On 1/18/23 2:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making >>>> any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
personal
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
Disagreeing with well-established facts shows that you don't know why
they are well-established, which means you are ignorant. And research
based on and adding to confirmation bias is worse than worthless.
On Jan 15, 2023 at 9:35:35 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:...................................
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:06:32 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:You have not identified a way in which design can be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com><snip>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need
to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision
to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
unambiguously separated from non-design; examples of "looks
like" aren't criteria. How you "think" things should happen,
how you imagine reality to work, and arguments from
incredulity or ignorance, are irrelevant. You need a
*step-by step* process by which an unknown can be
objectively evaluated, and you *still* haven't produced one.
Ok, non design is almost always random, aimless, irregular
drifting and winding, such as a river, desert sand domes, the
irregular manor trees stands, sizes height differ, mountains with
rugged edges. This includes crystals which grow in highly regular
angles with sharp edges exactly the same angles repeadily
hroughout the entire crystalline structure, volcano eruption
with lava splitting into streams flowing unparalleled.
By Contrast: designed would be straight, or sharp angles
or identical carves and angles such as auto body lines and
shapes. Equal angles straight lines such as the great pyramid
at Giza. Straight rows of stones, or perfectly round structures.
Ruins of ancient cities with building having straight organized
parameters, decayed and weathered building structures. Artificial
materials such clothing found in a cave and shingies on a roof.
If and when we go to mars and suppose a structure with a
"door" whth two right angles and 2 perfectly straight, paralled
lines of stubs entering a room this wiould represent design.
Just to list a few with examples.
On Jan 16, 2023 at 7:30:27 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:................................
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:<Snip>
On Jan 14, 2023 at 6:35:10 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean has not been specific ab
No, I've pointed out several times that there is no evidence which points to..........................................................I think you are playing games with me!out what he means when he uses wordsNo Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt >>>>>>>>> appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo. >>>>>>>>>
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or >>>>>>> between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between >>>>>>> transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no >>>>>>> transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked >>>>>>> before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
not evidence.
the
identity of the designer.
Well what you just wrote was "***naming*** the designer is just a matter of
faith." I'm not really sure what you see as the key difference between naming
and identifying.
It's exactly the same!
My point is different, and it's a point you keep ignoring. All of the things
which you say are evidence for design are ALSO evidence for specific characteristics of the designer. For example, if fine tuning of the physical
constants is evidence of design, then it implies that the designer has the capacity to set the values of the physical constants and that the designer was
active at least 14 billion years ago. If the absence of transitional fossils
between species is evidence of design, then the designer was active at each
new speciation event, in other words active in millions of places and millions
of times over hundreds of millions of years. If the lack of a sufficiently detailed naturalistic account of the origin of life is evidence for design,
then the designer was active on earth something like 4 billion years ago (and
was incapable of tweaking the physical constants and laws of nature well enough to get life to arise spontaneously).
Actually, I think it's higher than species, I suspect that design was as high
as phylum that occured at the beginning with the Early Cambrian.
So, contrary to your repeated assertion, all the evidence you cite as evidence
for design is simultaneously evidence about the abilities and the time and place of action of the designer. You seem to think that if current science does not explain something then, bingo, ask the theologians. But that's not
how design science, if there is such a thing, would work. IF science fails to
explain something, and IF the correct explanation is that the designer made it
happen, then the characteristics of the unexplained something (physical constants, origin of life, bacterial flagellum), immediately give you information about the characteristics of the designer. And real scientists would use that information to make and refine models of the designer. For the
nth time, it's not a question of identifying whether the designer is Yahweh,
Brahma, Allah, or Jupiter, it's a question of nailing down the characteristics
of the designer - and all the evidence you cite as evidence for design is ALSO
evidence for the characteristics of the designer (or designers).
I would accept the Characteristics you described.
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all theI have attempted to do this on many occasions. I consider reproduction
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics
of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific
evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence
you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin
of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the
absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the
characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed,
would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not >>> specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the
models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest >>> evidence that they are not doing science.
an example of design. But not design itself, but the capacity to reproduce.
Reproduction requires chemicals, matter and massive amounts of
information( know how) or intelligence. To program a robot to build
another robot does not work, since outside information, etc has to be
placed within it's reach. That is if it ever happens. Chemicals in a
lab requires outside help for parts, materials container etc.
I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. I and others, keep asking you to
specify criteria you can use to distinguish between designed and non-designed
things. Clearly "reproducing itself" is not a characteristic of most, maybe
all, things we know to be designed. So listing "reproduction" as an example
does not help your case. Indeed, you seem to be saying that if we built a robot able to replicate itself (something which would obviously be designed by
a known designer) that would not count as real reproduction.
And you continue to seem so unwilling to address them that I think you cannot
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
come up with an answer that makes sense even to yourself.
...................................Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by
testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains,
rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those
criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first
appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing >>> between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and >>> you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable
conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably >>> distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not.
Once again you avoid answering the question.
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil
would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific
about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a
transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only
reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
Once again, you avoid answering the question.
Any time someone points to a transition, it's in reality an assumption. Darwin hoped transitional fossils would be found and his followers had the desire
to find evidence in support of Darwin's theory in the location of intermediate
fossils.
But since some 99%+ of all animals, that ever lived went extinct without leaving any
decedents, the odds are overwhelming against any transitional fossils ever being
found, assuming they did exist. .
So, the question is: how can anyone know that what is offered as transitional
fossils
is simply there "best in the field"?. The point is Darwins followers wanted to
find something,
anything that served the purpose.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut
tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may
satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it
won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as
though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants
would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
Atheism contradicts design? No. Jill that's was never my claim.
What I said, the main reason atheist reject design is because design
implies a designer which in the atheist mindset is God. However,
someone suggest that atheist can accept design because atheist
may believe that aliens could be the designers. I cannot argue
against this.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:31:46 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 05:00:35 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares >> with design.
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2023 at 9:06:22 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
Once again, it's *your* claim that atheism contradicts design. Your
claim puts the burden on you to back it up, which you have never done
in your posts to T.O.
OTOH Harran did not claim that "atheism squares with design", and so<
has no burden to show that it does. What you do here with Harran is
the same as you did previously with me, to evade your burden by
raising a false equivalence. Do you really not understand how
dishonest this is?
What Harran did say above is to identify people who self-identify as
God believers and also reject design, which directly contradicts your
claim.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting designHowever, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but
that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..."
roundabout.
I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer
for themselves.
Apparently you're unwilling/unable to answer for yourself.
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:[snip]
One could be an atheist and believe Earthian life was designed by local or remote aliens. Your pal Peter promotes a version of this idea, though he
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse peopleIf I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares >> with design.
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
has claimed agnosticism.
On Jan 19, 2023 at 12:23:32 PM EST, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:[snip]
One could be an atheist and believe Earthian life was designed by local or >> remote aliens. Your pal Peter promotes a version of this idea, though he
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares
with design.
has claimed agnosticism.
As I see it, design can and should stand on it's own merits based on scientific
evidence. However, there is no scientific evidence which points to the identity
of the designer. So, I cannot argue against aliens as the designers.
On 1/19/23 3:49 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 7:30:27 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:<Snip>
On Jan 14, 2023 at 6:35:10 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean has not been specific ab
It's exactly the same!No, I've pointed out several times that there is no evidence which points to..........................................................I think you are playing games with me!out what he means when he uses wordsNo Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt >>>>>>>>>>> appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo. >>>>>>>>>>>
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>>>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or >>>>>>>>> between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between >>>>>>>>> transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>>>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no >>>>>>>>> transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked >>>>>>>>> before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
not evidence.
the
identity of the designer.
Well what you just wrote was "***naming*** the designer is just a matter of >>> faith." I'm not really sure what you see as the key difference between naming
and identifying.
Actually, I think it's higher than species, I suspect that design was as high
My point is different, and it's a point you keep ignoring. All of the things
which you say are evidence for design are ALSO evidence for specific
characteristics of the designer. For example, if fine tuning of the physical
constants is evidence of design, then it implies that the designer has the >>> capacity to set the values of the physical constants and that the designer was
active at least 14 billion years ago. If the absence of transitional fossils
between species is evidence of design, then the designer was active at each >>> new speciation event, in other words active in millions of places and millions
of times over hundreds of millions of years. If the lack of a sufficiently >>> detailed naturalistic account of the origin of life is evidence for design, >>> then the designer was active on earth something like 4 billion years ago (and
was incapable of tweaking the physical constants and laws of nature well >>> enough to get life to arise spontaneously).
as phylum that occured at the beginning with the Early Cambrian.
How can that be, since you completely ignore the fossil record at the beginning of the Early Cambrian, starting your story only at Cambrian
Stage 3?
And what about the fossils that are intermediate between two or more
extant phyla, such as the "lobopods", halkieriids, *Kimberella*, and so on?
So, contrary to your repeated assertion, all the evidence you cite as evidenceI would accept the Characteristics you described.
for design is simultaneously evidence about the abilities and the time and >>> place of action of the designer. You seem to think that if current science >>> does not explain something then, bingo, ask the theologians. But that's not >>> how design science, if there is such a thing, would work. IF science fails to
explain something, and IF the correct explanation is that the designer made it
happen, then the characteristics of the unexplained something (physical
constants, origin of life, bacterial flagellum), immediately give you
information about the characteristics of the designer. And real scientists >>> would use that information to make and refine models of the designer. For the
nth time, it's not a question of identifying whether the designer is Yahweh,
Brahma, Allah, or Jupiter, it's a question of nailing down the characteristics
of the designer - and all the evidence you cite as evidence for design is ALSO
evidence for the characteristics of the designer (or designers).
Any time someone points to a transition, it's in reality an assumption.
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all theI have attempted to do this on many occasions. I consider reproduction >>>> an example of design. But not design itself, but the capacity to reproduce.
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics
of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific
evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence
you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin
of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the >>>>> absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the
characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed,
would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not >>>>> specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the
models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest >>>>> evidence that they are not doing science.
Reproduction requires chemicals, matter and massive amounts of
information( know how) or intelligence. To program a robot to build
another robot does not work, since outside information, etc has to be
placed within it's reach. That is if it ever happens. Chemicals in a
lab requires outside help for parts, materials container etc.
I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. I and others, keep asking you to
specify criteria you can use to distinguish between designed and non-designed
things. Clearly "reproducing itself" is not a characteristic of most, maybe >>> all, things we know to be designed. So listing "reproduction" as an example >>> does not help your case. Indeed, you seem to be saying that if we built a >>> robot able to replicate itself (something which would obviously be designed by
a known designer) that would not count as real reproduction.
And you continue to seem so unwilling to address them that I think you cannot
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
come up with an answer that makes sense even to yourself.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by >>>>>>> testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains,
rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those
criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first
appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing >>>>> between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and >>>>> you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable >>>>> conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably >>>>> distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not.
Once again you avoid answering the question.
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil
would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific
about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a
transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only
reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
Once again, you avoid answering the question.
Darwin hoped transitional fossils would be found and his followers had the >> desire
to find evidence in support of Darwin's theory in the location of intermediate
fossils.
But since some 99%+ of all animals, that ever lived went extinct without
leaving any
decedents, the odds are overwhelming against any transitional fossils ever >> being
found, assuming they did exist. .
You misunderstand what transitional fossils are. Nobody is claiming that they're actual ancestors. They just show that intermediates among groups actually existed. They show transitional states, whether they are
ancestors or cousins of the ancestors.
So, the question is: how can anyone know that what is offered as transitional
fossils
is simply there "best in the field"?. The point is Darwins followers wanted to
find something,
anything that served the purpose.
Have you ever looked at any of these transitional fossils? Otherwise
you're just casting unsupported aspersions on the morals of paleontologists.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut
tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may
satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it
won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as
though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants
would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>>>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:quarrel with atheism or any other faith. And we cannot know for a
On Jan 19, 2023 at 12:23:32 PM EST, "*Hemidactylus*"So atheism squares with design? I should point out that I have no
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>[snip]
wrote:
One could be an atheist and believe Earthian life was designed by local or >>> remote aliens. Your pal Peter promotes a version of this idea, though he >>> has claimed agnosticism.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares
with design.
As I see it, design can and should stand on it's own merits based on
scientific
evidence. However, there is no scientific evidence which points to the
identity
of the designer. So, I cannot argue against aliens as the designers.
On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 6:50:55 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 7:30:27 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"................................
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:<Snip>
On Jan 14, 2023 at 6:35:10 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean has not been specific ab
It's exactly the same!No, I've pointed out several times that there is no evidence which points to..........................................................I think you are playing games with me!out what he means when he uses wordsNo Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt >>>>>>>>>>> appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not >>>>>>>>>>> just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo. >>>>>>>>>>>
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense >>>>>>>>> you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or >>>>>>>>> between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between >>>>>>>>> transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata
means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts >>>>>>>> arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no >>>>>>>>> transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked >>>>>>>>> before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
not evidence.
the
identity of the designer.
Well what you just wrote was "***naming*** the designer is just a matter of >>> faith." I'm not really sure what you see as the key difference between naming
and identifying.
My point is different, and it's a point you keep ignoring. All of the things
which you say are evidence for design are ALSO evidence for specific
characteristics of the designer. For example, if fine tuning of the physical
constants is evidence of design, then it implies that the designer has the >>> capacity to set the values of the physical constants and that the designer was
active at least 14 billion years ago. If the absence of transitional fossils
between species is evidence of design, then the designer was active at each >>> new speciation event, in other words active in millions of places and millions
of times over hundreds of millions of years. If the lack of a sufficiently >>> detailed naturalistic account of the origin of life is evidence for design, >>> then the designer was active on earth something like 4 billion years ago (and
was incapable of tweaking the physical constants and laws of nature well >>> enough to get life to arise spontaneously).
Actually, I think it's higher than species, I suspect that design was as high
as phylum that occured at the beginning with the Early Cambrian.
But you say that the lack of transitional fossils is evidence for design. Since you say there are no transitional fossils at all, then there obviously are no transitional fossils between species. If that lack of transitional fossils is indeed evidence of design, then the only conclusion is that the designer was responsible for each individual speciation event.
...................................I would accept the Characteristics you described.
So, contrary to your repeated assertion, all the evidence you cite as evidence
for design is simultaneously evidence about the abilities and the time and >>> place of action of the designer. You seem to think that if current science >>> does not explain something then, bingo, ask the theologians. But that's not >>> how design science, if there is such a thing, would work. IF science fails to
explain something, and IF the correct explanation is that the designer made it
happen, then the characteristics of the unexplained something (physical
constants, origin of life, bacterial flagellum), immediately give you
information about the characteristics of the designer. And real scientists >>> would use that information to make and refine models of the designer. For the
nth time, it's not a question of identifying whether the designer is Yahweh,
Brahma, Allah, or Jupiter, it's a question of nailing down the characteristics
of the designer - and all the evidence you cite as evidence for design is ALSO
evidence for the characteristics of the designer (or designers).
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all theI have attempted to do this on many occasions. I consider reproduction >>>> an example of design. But not design itself, but the capacity to reproduce.
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics
of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific
evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence
you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin
of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the >>>>> absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the
characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed,
would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not >>>>> specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the
models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest >>>>> evidence that they are not doing science.
Reproduction requires chemicals, matter and massive amounts of
information( know how) or intelligence. To program a robot to build
another robot does not work, since outside information, etc has to be
placed within it's reach. That is if it ever happens. Chemicals in a
lab requires outside help for parts, materials container etc.
I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. I and others, keep asking you to
specify criteria you can use to distinguish between designed and non-designed
things. Clearly "reproducing itself" is not a characteristic of most, maybe >>> all, things we know to be designed. So listing "reproduction" as an example >>> does not help your case. Indeed, you seem to be saying that if we built a >>> robot able to replicate itself (something which would obviously be designed by
a known designer) that would not count as real reproduction.
And you continue to seem so unwilling to address them that I think you cannot
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
come up with an answer that makes sense even to yourself.
Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by >>>>>>> testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains,
rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those
criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first
appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing >>>>> between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and >>>>> you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable >>>>> conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably >>>>> distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not.
Once again you avoid answering the question.
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil
would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific
about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a
transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only
reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
Once again, you avoid answering the question.
Any time someone points to a transition, it's in reality an assumption.
Darwin hoped transitional fossils would be found and his followers had the >> desire
to find evidence in support of Darwin's theory in the location of intermediate
fossils.
But since some 99%+ of all animals, that ever lived went extinct without
leaving any
decedents, the odds are overwhelming against any transitional fossils ever >> being
found, assuming they did exist. .
So, the question is: how can anyone know that what is offered as transitional
fossils
is simply there "best in the field"?. The point is Darwins followers wanted to
find something,
anything that served the purpose.
A couple of points about your response. First, you still, even now, have not answered the question "what would a transitional fossil look like?" In other words "what would you need to see to call something a real transitional?" In your response you say that even if transitional fossils existed the odds would
be heavily against their ever being found - but if that's what you think, then
there is no reason at all to consider the absence of transitional fossils as evidence against the theory of evolution. Why not, because of the theory of evolution were false you claim that you would not find transitional fossils, but then you also claim that there's a 99% chance that you would not find transitional fossils even if the theory of evolution were true. So their absence is hardly evidence of anything.
Now, Harshman has also explained that you seem to misunderstand what a transitional fossil is meant to be in the first place. You could remedy that by reading an evolutionary biology textbook, or even the Origin of Species (the book itself, not cherry-picked, context-free quotations recycled through creationist websites). It's easy enough to find descriptions and pictures of transitional fossils and transitional series on-line, and most of those sources will remind you, as Harshman does, that transitional fossils are not expected to be on a direct line of descent between one member of an ancestral group and one member of a derived group.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut
tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may
satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it
won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as
though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants
would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>>>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of >>>>>>>>>>> his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so.
On Jan 19, 2023 at 7:14:07 PM EST, "John Harshman" <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/19/23 3:49 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Sorry, I was under the impression that there was a massive rush of phyla
On Jan 16, 2023 at 7:30:27 AM EST, "brogers31751@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 10:55:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:<Snip>
On Jan 14, 2023 at 6:35:10 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:18:42 AM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean has not been specific ab
It's exactly the same!No, I've pointed out several times that there is no evidence which points to..........................................................I think you are playing games with me!out what he means when he uses wordsNo Jill, I usually refer to this in terms of abrupt in a layer of strata
like "abrupt" and "gradual". However, based on his claim that abrupt
appearance in the fossil record is real, and that the Cambrian >>>>>>>>>>>> Explosion undermines evolution, and his rejection of transitional >>>>>>>>>>>> forms, my impression is he doesn't mean "development over some >>>>>>>>>>>> millions of years", and instead does mean the apparent abrupt >>>>>>>>>>>> appearance of organisms in the fossil record is literally true, not
just on a geologic scale but on a human scale, and Cambrian organisms
literally appeared without prior ancestors aka ex nihilo. >>>>>>>>>>>>
or abrupt geologically speaking.
I acknowledge your comment above is technically correct, in the sense
you use those words. However, you also "refer to this" while making >>>>>>>>>> baseless claims about evidence for design and/or against evolution, >>>>>>>>>> which makes that meaning incoherent. And you *still* don't say how >>>>>>>>>> you distinguish between abrupt strata and not-abrupt strata, or >>>>>>>>>> between sudden appearance and not-sudden appearance, or between >>>>>>>>>> transitional fossils and not-transitional fossils, or between fully >>>>>>>>>> functional and not-fully functional. Based on that, I have no reason >>>>>>>>>> to believe you mean those words as Athel describes.
I make certain assumptions: What I mean by abrupt in a strata >>>>>>>>> means no intermediates in lower strata. I was in reference to the massive
numbers of complex, compound animals which are found with mouths, guts
arose in the Cambrian with no known common ancestor in the Edicaran era.
But you now say you mean these things to refer to "over millions of >>>>>>>>>> years". So reconcile that meaning with your oft-repeated claims that >>>>>>>>>> abrupt strata and sudden appearance and fully functional and no >>>>>>>>>> transitional fossils are evidence for purposeful design and/or against
unguided evolution. Not sure how many times you need to be asked >>>>>>>>>> before you actually explain yourself.
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
Why not? What has design got to do with God? You keep saying there's no way to
know anything about the designer, at least no scientific way, so the question
of God is separate from the question of design.
No, it's not part of design. Naming the designer is just an matter of faith,You keep talking about "naming" the designer.
not evidence.
the
identity of the designer.
Well what you just wrote was "***naming*** the designer is just a matter of
faith." I'm not really sure what you see as the key difference between naming
and identifying.
Actually, I think it's higher than species, I suspect that design was as high
My point is different, and it's a point you keep ignoring. All of the things
which you say are evidence for design are ALSO evidence for specific
characteristics of the designer. For example, if fine tuning of the physical
constants is evidence of design, then it implies that the designer has the >>>> capacity to set the values of the physical constants and that the designer was
active at least 14 billion years ago. If the absence of transitional fossils
between species is evidence of design, then the designer was active at each
new speciation event, in other words active in millions of places and millions
of times over hundreds of millions of years. If the lack of a sufficiently >>>> detailed naturalistic account of the origin of life is evidence for design,
then the designer was active on earth something like 4 billion years ago (and
was incapable of tweaking the physical constants and laws of nature well >>>> enough to get life to arise spontaneously).
as phylum that occured at the beginning with the Early Cambrian.
How can that be, since you completely ignore the fossil record at the
beginning of the Early Cambrian, starting your story only at Cambrian
Stage 3?
etc starting at the early stages of the Cambrian and no known links prior.
And what about the fossils that are intermediate between two or moreWere they intermediates (ancestors): if so, to what Cambrian phyla?
extant phyla, such as the "lobopods", halkieriids, *Kimberella*, and so on? >>
I'll admit, I'm confused: you have stated that transitional fossils are not necessarily intermediates, but they could be sister or cousins. Please clairify this, for me.
I did not consider that possibility. And that was _not_ my intent. I believe anyoneSo, contrary to your repeated assertion, all the evidence you cite as evidenceI would accept the Characteristics you described.
for design is simultaneously evidence about the abilities and the time and >>>> place of action of the designer. You seem to think that if current science >>>> does not explain something then, bingo, ask the theologians. But that's not
how design science, if there is such a thing, would work. IF science fails to
explain something, and IF the correct explanation is that the designer made it
happen, then the characteristics of the unexplained something (physical >>>> constants, origin of life, bacterial flagellum), immediately give you
information about the characteristics of the designer. And real scientists >>>> would use that information to make and refine models of the designer. For the
nth time, it's not a question of identifying whether the designer is Yahweh,
Brahma, Allah, or Jupiter, it's a question of nailing down the characteristics
of the designer - and all the evidence you cite as evidence for design is ALSO
evidence for the characteristics of the designer (or designers).
Any time someone points to a transition, it's in reality an assumption.
Putting a name to the designer is not the issue. The question is using all theI have attempted to do this on many occasions. I consider reproduction >>>>> an example of design. But not design itself, but the capacity to reproduce.
evidence that you see as evidence for design to constrain the characteristics
of the designer. Nobody's asking for design proponents to provide scientific
evidence that the designer's name is Bob. The point is that all the evidence
you assert is evidence for design (fine-tuned physical constants, the origin
of life, the origin of phyla in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagella, the
absence of transitional fossils, etc) all put constraints on the
characteristics of the designer. A real design scientist, if such existed,
would use all those constraints to develop models of the designer (not >>>>>> specific names), and would then look for additional evidence to refine the
models. The fact that design proponents do not do that is the clearest >>>>>> evidence that they are not doing science.
Reproduction requires chemicals, matter and massive amounts of
information( know how) or intelligence. To program a robot to build
another robot does not work, since outside information, etc has to be >>>>> placed within it's reach. That is if it ever happens. Chemicals in a >>>>> lab requires outside help for parts, materials container etc.
I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. I and others, keep asking you to
specify criteria you can use to distinguish between designed and non-designed
things. Clearly "reproducing itself" is not a characteristic of most, maybe
all, things we know to be designed. So listing "reproduction" as an example
does not help your case. Indeed, you seem to be saying that if we built a >>>> robot able to replicate itself (something which would obviously be designed by
a known designer) that would not count as real reproduction.
And you continue to seem so unwilling to address them that I think you cannot
So two points which you seem unwilling to address
come up with an answer that makes sense even to yourself.
Once again you avoid answering the question.Darwin believed that searching for transitional (intermediate) fossils at his
1. If you want to demonstrate design to an atheist or anyone else you have to
pick a set of explicit diagnostic criteria that reliably distinguish designed
things from non-designed things. You can show that the criteria work by
testing them on all sorts of things which we agree are designed (computers,
cathedrals, symphonies) and things we agree are not designed (mountains,
rivers, stalactites, geodites, mineral crystals). Then you can apply those
criteria to things about which there's disagreement (e.g. phyla that first
appeared in the Cambrian, the bacterial flagellum, the values of the physical
constants) and use that to make an argument that those things are designed.
While you're at it you could finally say what criteria you would use to decide
whether a given fossil is transitional or not, but that's a relatively minor
point compared to laying out the criteria for identifying designed versus
non-designed things.
time was too brief, but that
future searches would find the fossils he hhad that oped for. The question is;
in view of the expectation and
the hope that these intermediate fossils would be found, how can on know that
the transitional fossils
that are supposidly real are not just the "best in the field".
You still seem unwilling to lay out explicit criteria for distinguishing >>>>>> between designed and undesigned things. I've asked you so many times and >>>>>> you've avoided providing an answer so many times that the only reasonable
conclusion is that you cannot lay out a set of criteria that reliably >>>>>> distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not. >>>>
You also seem unwilling to say what you think a "real" transitional fossil
would look like and what criteria it would have to meet to satisfy you that it
was a "real" transitional fossil. I've asked you so many times to be specific
about what criteria would need to be met to convince you that a fossil is a
transitional fossil and you've avoided answering so many times that the only
reasonable conclusion is that you can define no such criteria.
Once again, you avoid answering the question.
Darwin hoped transitional fossils would be found and his followers had the >>> desire
to find evidence in support of Darwin's theory in the location of intermediate
fossils.
But since some 99%+ of all animals, that ever lived went extinct without >>> leaving any
decedents, the odds are overwhelming against any transitional fossils ever >>> being
found, assuming they did exist. .
You misunderstand what transitional fossils are. Nobody is claiming that
they're actual ancestors. They just show that intermediates among groups
actually existed. They show transitional states, whether they are
ancestors or cousins of the ancestors.
So, the question is: how can anyone know that what is offered as transitional
fossils
is simply there "best in the field"?. The point is Darwins followers wanted to
find something,
anything that served the purpose.
Have you ever looked at any of these transitional fossils? Otherwise
you're just casting unsupported aspersions on the morals of paleontologists. >>
can draw the wrong conclusions from evidence. And especially when evidence
is not always objective, but rather subject to intrepretation.
It comes down to you gut tells you that some things are designed and your gut
tells you that no actual fossils are "real" transitional fossils. That may
satisfy you, but until you define the criteria you've been asked about, it
won't satisfy anyone who does not share your gut feelings.
2. You keep suggesting that atheism is what makes people reject design, as
though finding natural explanations for the "Cambrian explosion" or the origin
of life or the bacterial flagellum or the values of the physical constants
would constitute an argument against God. It wouldn't. If you were presented
with a detailed, mutation by mutation, selection pressure by selection >>>>>>>> pressure, account of the evolution of some organism, backed up by perfect
preservation of fossils from each generation over millions of years, you could
still say that God designed it all by setting up a universe with just the
right physical laws, values of physical constants, and initial conditions to
make that evolution possible. There is no head to head conflict between God
and "naturalistic" explanations for the biological world.
That's not an issue.
Of course, my impression could be wrong, but I can make no sense of
his claims otherwise, and only Ron Dean is qualified to say so. >>>
On Jan 19, 2023 at 10:43:25 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" ><specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/18/23 2:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's >>> personal
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making >>>>> any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
Disagreeing with well-established facts shows that you don't know why
they are well-established, which means you are ignorant. And research
based on and adding to confirmation bias is worse than worthless.
There is no such "established facts"! It's all interpretation of the evidence >educated guesses and the common accepted paradigm. Admittedly there
are several people on this NG with degrees in Biology. I did not study biology >as a profession, but I did study biology in high school for one year, However, >I am an engineer MsEE (_forced_ retirement due to health issues) But I did >find new employment after about 3 weeks with an international engineering >firm.
Thank you, Mark
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:[snip]
One could be an atheist and believe Earthian life was designed by local or >remote aliens. Your pal Peter promotes a version of this idea, though he
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse peopleIf I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares >> with design.
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
has claimed agnosticism.
On Jan 19, 2023 at 12:54:27 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 15:31:46 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Atheism contradicts design? No. Jill that's was never my claim.
wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 05:00:35 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2023 at 9:06:22 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and >>>>>> Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
with design.
Once again, it's *your* claim that atheism contradicts design. Your
claim puts the burden on you to back it up, which you have never done
in your posts to T.O.
What I said, the main reason atheist reject design is because design
implies a designer which in the atheist mindset is God.
However,
someone suggest that atheist can accept design because atheist
may believe that aliens could be the designers. I cannot argue
against this.
OTOH Harran did not claim that "atheism squares with design", and so<
has no burden to show that it does. What you do here with Harran is
the same as you did previously with me, to evade your burden by
raising a false equivalence. Do you really not understand how
dishonest this is?
"Atheism squares with design", was my phraseing. I did not credit
Hurran for this wording.
When someone suggested that atheist
could believe design: aliens could be the designers. I surrendered,
I knew there was no way I could counter this argument. I am not
dishonest. I did not think that you ever engaged with personal assault >character assissanition or individual insults. I'm disappointed.
What Harran did say above is to identify people who self-identify as
God believers and also reject design, which directly contradicts your
claim.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting designHowever, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but >>>> that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..."
roundabout.
I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer
for themselves.
Apparently you're unwilling/unable to answer for yourself.
On Jan 19, 2023 at 7:48:54 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com"<snip lots of older strata>
..................................................................
Actually, I think it's higher than species, I suspect that design was as high
as phylum that occured at the beginning with the Early Cambrian.
But you say that the lack of transitional fossils is evidence for design. Since you say there are no transitional fossils at all, then there obviously
are no transitional fossils between species. If that lack of transitional fossils is indeed evidence of design, then the only conclusion is that the designer was responsible for each individual speciation event.
This does not represent my views.
In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared during, what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of intermediates or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
In scientific terms, species is common, but not so, in ordinary circunstances.Well, there are millions of species alive now. There are (at least in your view) no transitional fossils linking them to any precursors; therefore it follows that the designer has intervened on earth millions and millions of times over millions of years.
In observing an unknown animal almost no-one will inquire about the species...
Instead, the question normally would be, "What _kind_ of animal is that?" The term _kind_ is higher than species. Perhaps kind is near the level of class or even as high as order.
On Jan 19, 2023 at 8:24:24 PM EST, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:Aliens are sort of beside the point. You don't need aliens to square design with atheism. The designer is completely unspecified and means nothing more than "whatever caused the physical constants to be what they are." That's all "design science" gives
Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:quarrel with atheism or any other faith. And we cannot know for a
On Jan 19, 2023 at 12:23:32 PM EST, "*Hemidactylus*"So atheism squares with design? I should point out that I have no
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com>[snip]
wrote:
One could be an atheist and believe Earthian life was designed by local or
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares
with design.
remote aliens. Your pal Peter promotes a version of this idea, though he >>> has claimed agnosticism.
As I see it, design can and should stand on it's own merits based on
scientific
evidence. However, there is no scientific evidence which points to the
identity
of the designer. So, I cannot argue against aliens as the designers.
certainty whether there is or is not a deity(s).
In this regard: yes! It squires with design in that aliens coulld be the designers
On Jan 15, 2023 at 9:35:35 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:06:32 GMT, the following appeared inOk, non design is almost always random, aimless, irregular
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>You have not identified a way in which design can be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com><snip>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need
to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision
to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
unambiguously separated from non-design; examples of "looks
like" aren't criteria. How you "think" things should happen,
how you imagine reality to work, and arguments from
incredulity or ignorance, are irrelevant. You need a
*step-by step* process by which an unknown can be
objectively evaluated, and you *still* haven't produced one.
drifting and winding, such as a river, desert sand domes, the
irregular manor trees stands, sizes height differ, mountains with
rugged edges. This includes crystals which grow in highly regular
angles with sharp edges exactly the same angles repeadily
hroughout the entire crystalline structure, volcano eruption
with lava splitting into streams flowing unparalleled.
By Contrast: designed would be straight, or sharp angles
or identical carves and angles such as auto body lines and
shapes. Equal angles straight lines such as the great pyramid
at Giza. Straight rows of stones, or perfectly round structures.
Ruins of ancient cities with building having straight organized
parameters, decayed and weathered building structures. Artificial
materials such clothing found in a cave and shingies on a roof.
If and when we go to mars and suppose a structure with a
"door" whth two right angles and 2 perfectly straight, paralled
lines of stubs entering a room this wiould represent design.
Just to list a few with examples.
[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the basis and foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:23:32 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:[snip]
One could be an atheist and believe Earthian life was designed by local or >> remote aliens. Your pal Peter promotes a version of this idea, though he
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares
with design.
has claimed agnosticism.
This is a poor line of reasoning to raise. The only difference
between God and extraterrestrials with godlike powers are the names.
More to the point, extraterrestrials allow cdesign proponentsists like
R.Dean and PeeWee Peter to continue to presume purposeful intelligence without specifying the characteristics that would be required for
their Designer to have done what they claim their Designer has done.
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared during, what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of intermediates or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
As for intermediates: You yourself give a good reason to expect finding
none: You don't know what they look like.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared during, >>> what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of intermediates >>> or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla appearing first in the Cambrian
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared during, >> > what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla appearing first in the Cambrian
As for intermediates: You yourself give a good reason to expect finding
none: You don't know what they look like.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On 1/20/23 1:08 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:23:32 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>[snip]
wrote:
One could be an atheist and believe Earthian life was designed by local or >>> remote aliens. Your pal Peter promotes a version of this idea, though he >>> has claimed agnosticism.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares
with design.
This is a poor line of reasoning to raise. The only difference
between God and extraterrestrials with godlike powers are the names.
More to the point, extraterrestrials allow cdesign proponentsists like
R.Dean and PeeWee Peter to continue to presume purposeful intelligence
without specifying the characteristics that would be required for
their Designer to have done what they claim their Designer has done.
The bigger difference is whether people venerate them. It could be
argued that evolution has godlike powers; it certainly has the power to >create new forms. But people don't treat it as a god, probably because
(a) evolution does not have consciousness, and therefore does not have
the power to treat any person with special consideration, and (b) it is
a new idea. But Nature in general has been deemed divine more than
once, so there is no reason why evolution *could* not be a god.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:03:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2023 at 10:43:25 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/18/23 2:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's >>>> personal
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making >>>>>> any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
Disagreeing with well-established facts shows that you don't know why
they are well-established, which means you are ignorant. And research
based on and adding to confirmation bias is worse than worthless.
There is no such "established facts"! It's all interpretation of the evidence
educated guesses and the common accepted paradigm. Admittedly there
are several people on this NG with degrees in Biology. I did not study biology
as a profession, but I did study biology in high school for one year, However,
I am an engineer MsEE (_forced_ retirement due to health issues) But I did >> find new employment after about 3 weeks with an international engineering
firm.
Thank you, Mark
So even though both Mark and I make similar points using similar
words, you give Mark a "thank you", while you give me a
"disappointed". How sincere is that?
On Jan 20, 2023 at 4:00:41 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:03:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Mark did _not_ insult me, you did.
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2023 at 10:43:25 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/18/23 2:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's >>>>> personal
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making
any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
Disagreeing with well-established facts shows that you don't know why
they are well-established, which means you are ignorant. And research >>>> based on and adding to confirmation bias is worse than worthless.
There is no such "established facts"! It's all interpretation of the evidence
educated guesses and the common accepted paradigm. Admittedly there
are several people on this NG with degrees in Biology. I did not study biology
as a profession, but I did study biology in high school for one year, However,
I am an engineer MsEE (_forced_ retirement due to health issues) But I did >>> find new employment after about 3 weeks with an international engineering >>> firm.
Thank you, Mark
So even though both Mark and I make similar points using similar
words, you give Mark a "thank you", while you give me a
"disappointed". How sincere is that?
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:50:15 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>[snip]
wrote:<
Atheism contradicts design? No. Jill that's was never my claim.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squareswrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and >>>>>>> Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
with design.
Once again, it's *your* claim that atheism contradicts design. Your
claim puts the burden on you to back it up, which you have never done
in your posts to T.O.
What I said, the main reason atheist reject design is because design
implies a designer which in the atheist mindset is God.
If I inaccurately paraphrased your claim, I apologize. However, you
don't make clear any distinction. Why is that?
Also, you presume to know atheists' mindset, again without providing
any basis for that presumption. Why is that?
My experience is atheists who reject purposeful Design do so because
there is no evidence for purposeful Design. IOW God has nothing to do
with their conclusion.
And you *still* don't address the point I have repeatedly raised, that
when you claim atheists *reject* purposeful Design because they're
atheists, that necessarily implies you *accept* purposeful Design
because of you believe in God, which contradicts your repeated claim
that you don't presume God is your Designer.
snip]
Aliens don't rescue purposeful Design in any meaningful way. The only difference to Design between unspecified aliens and unspecified Gods
is the name. What remains missing is the dots which connect your
presumption of a purposeful Designer with the things you claim It has
done.
OTOH Harran did not claim that "atheism squares with design", and so<>"Atheism squares with design", was my phraseing. I did not credit
has no burden to show that it does. What you do here with Harran is
the same as you did previously with me, to evade your burden by
raising a false equivalence. Do you really not understand how
dishonest this is?
Hurran for this wording.
Don't play that game. I know you know I didn't say you did. Instead,
you explicitly accused me of being atheist, based solely on my
insistence that you back up your claims.
And you accused others based
solely on their rejection of the Designer Inference. And you
questioned the sincerity and integrity of professional scientists
generally for similar reasons. And you have done this many times. And
you have been corrected many times, in vain. You can't reasonably
pass it off now as some innocent misunderstanding on your part.
When someone suggested that atheist
could believe design: aliens could be the designers. I surrendered,
I knew there was no way I could counter this argument. I am not
dishonest. I did not think that you ever engaged with personal assault
character assissanition or individual insults. I'm disappointed.
Once again you play the victim card, when it is you, Ron Dean, who
cynically and mindlessly challenge the motives and integrity of
others. Who do you think you're fooling?
What Harran did say above is to identify people who self-identify as
God believers and also reject design, which directly contradicts your
claim.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting designHowever, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but >>>>> that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..."
roundabout.
I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer
for themselves.
Apparently you're unwilling/unable to answer for yourself.
Why limit the question to animal phyla? There are 5 recognized
taxonomic Kingdoms:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
The above lists the phyla within each Kingom.
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
On Jan 20, 2023 at 4:08:10 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:50:15 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>[snip]
wrote:<
I have stated on many occasion that there is evidence which can be >interpreted as supporting design. However, I also stated that I know
Atheism contradicts design? No. Jill that's was never my claim.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squareswrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To >>>>>>>> rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force >>>>>>>> driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and >>>>>>>> Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
with design.
Once again, it's *your* claim that atheism contradicts design. Your
claim puts the burden on you to back it up, which you have never done
in your posts to T.O.
What I said, the main reason atheist reject design is because design
implies a designer which in the atheist mindset is God.
If I inaccurately paraphrased your claim, I apologize. However, you
don't make clear any distinction. Why is that?
Also, you presume to know atheists' mindset, again without providing
any basis for that presumption. Why is that?
My experience is atheists who reject purposeful Design do so because
there is no evidence for purposeful Design. IOW God has nothing to do
with their conclusion.
And you *still* don't address the point I have repeatedly raised, that
when you claim atheists *reject* purposeful Design because they're
atheists, that necessarily implies you *accept* purposeful Design
because of you believe in God, which contradicts your repeated claim
that you don't presume God is your Designer.
of no evidence that points to the identity of the designer. So, what I >personally believe or don't believe is my personal faith
which is no issue.
snip]I have aregued that design implies a designer, the alien aspect was not
Aliens don't rescue purposeful Design in any meaningful way. The only
difference to Design between unspecified aliens and unspecified Gods
is the name. What remains missing is the dots which connect your
presumption of a purposeful Designer with the things you claim It has
done.
a position of mine, but I can accept that you or someone else's idea
is an alien. Ok, I have no problem with that. It's your right.
Did I accouse you of being an atheist, if I did I'm sorry. I don't know and >had no right.OTOH Harran did not claim that "atheism squares with design", and so<>"Atheism squares with design", was my phraseing. I did not credit
has no burden to show that it does. What you do here with Harran is
the same as you did previously with me, to evade your burden by
raising a false equivalence. Do you really not understand how
dishonest this is?
Hurran for this wording.
Don't play that game. I know you know I didn't say you did. Instead,
you explicitly accused me of being atheist, based solely on my
insistence that you back up your claims.
And you accused others basedYou are reading too mush into what I write.
solely on their rejection of the Designer Inference. And you
questioned the sincerity and integrity of professional scientists
generally for similar reasons. And you have done this many times. And
you have been corrected many times, in vain. You can't reasonably
pass it off now as some innocent misunderstanding on your part.
What I wrote is my honest
opinion. Darwin hoped that future research would find evidence of his
theory, specifically, he was concerned about the missing intermediates >fossils preceeditg the Cambrian Explosion. And followers of Darwin with
this goal in mind could point to certain fossils as transitional. But my >question is: how can anyone know what they point to is simply "best in
the field"? I think it's a fair question.
When someone suggested that atheist
could believe design: aliens could be the designers. I surrendered,
I knew there was no way I could counter this argument. I am not
dishonest. I did not think that you ever engaged with personal assault
character assissanition or individual insults. I'm disappointed.
Once again you play the victim card, when it is you, Ron Dean, who
cynically and mindlessly challenge the motives and integrity of
others. Who do you think you're fooling?
What Harran did say above is to identify people who self-identify as
God believers and also reject design, which directly contradicts your
claim.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting designHowever, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but >>>>>> that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..." >>>>>> roundabout.
I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer
for themselves.
Apparently you're unwilling/unable to answer for yourself.
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
On 20/01/2023 17:59, jillery wrote:
Why limit the question to animal phyla? There are 5 recognized
taxonomic Kingdoms:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
The above lists the phyla within each Kingom.
Another point is that all the major subgroups of a taxon arise within
the early portion of the taxon's life. We should expect to find the
origins of animal phyla clustered in time. (Ron Dean might not - he
seems to confuse evolution with the great chain of being.)
If a phylum is found to be younger it gets demoted from being a phylum -
see Echiura (now a subclass of the annelid class Polychaeta, and perhaps
to be demoted further) and Vestimentifera and Pogonophora (reduced to
the status of 2 out of 4 lineages in the annelid family Siboglinidae).
If a design apologist wishes to make an argument based on the Cambrian
fauna they should be making a mathematical argument based on objective figures of disparity, not on artefacts of taxonomic practice.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista
Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi
Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8
Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v.
lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than
animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The
fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold,
R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of
goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 7:45:54 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 15, 2023 at 9:35:35 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>...................................
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:06:32 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>>>You have not identified a way in which design can be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need
to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision
to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
unambiguously separated from non-design; examples of "looks
like" aren't criteria. How you "think" things should happen,
how you imagine reality to work, and arguments from
incredulity or ignorance, are irrelevant. You need a
*step-by step* process by which an unknown can be
objectively evaluated, and you *still* haven't produced one.
Ok, non design is almost always random, aimless, irregular
drifting and winding, such as a river, desert sand domes, the
irregular manor trees stands, sizes height differ, mountains with
rugged edges. This includes crystals which grow in highly regular
angles with sharp edges exactly the same angles repeadily
hroughout the entire crystalline structure, volcano eruption
with lava splitting into streams flowing unparalleled.
OK, but how are crystals that grow in highly regular angles with sharp edges supposed to be "random, aimless, irregular, drifting, and winding?" You've shown right there that you cannot use criteria like "non-design....random, irregular, drifting and winding" versus "By contrast design would be straight or sharp angles," to distinguish design from non-design. Crystals are an example of non-design with straight, sharp angles and any Jackson Pollock is an exmple of design that looks "random, irregular, and drifting."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/photos-mexico-cave-of-crystals
By Contrast: designed would be straight, or sharp angles
or identical carves and angles such as auto body lines and
shapes. Equal angles straight lines such as the great pyramid
at Giza. Straight rows of stones, or perfectly round structures.
Ruins of ancient cities with building having straight organized
parameters, decayed and weathered building structures. Artificial
materials such clothing found in a cave and shingies on a roof.
If and when we go to mars and suppose a structure with a
"door" whth two right angles and 2 perfectly straight, paralled
lines of stubs entering a room this wiould represent design.
Just to list a few with examples.
Examples are not what you need. You need specific criteria that distinguish non-design from design. So far, you have not given any such criteria that clearly discriminate between things we know are designed and things we know are not designed.
On Jan 19, 2023 at 7:56:35 PM EST, "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 7:45:54 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 15, 2023 at 9:35:35 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:...................................
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:06:32 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:You have not identified a way in which design can be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com><snip>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need >>>> to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision >>>> to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
unambiguously separated from non-design; examples of "looks
like" aren't criteria. How you "think" things should happen,
how you imagine reality to work, and arguments from
incredulity or ignorance, are irrelevant. You need a
*step-by step* process by which an unknown can be
objectively evaluated, and you *still* haven't produced one.
Ok, non design is almost always random, aimless, irregular
drifting and winding, such as a river, desert sand domes, the
irregular manor trees stands, sizes height differ, mountains with
rugged edges. This includes crystals which grow in highly regular
angles with sharp edges exactly the same angles repeadily
hroughout the entire crystalline structure, volcano eruption
with lava splitting into streams flowing unparalleled.
OK, but how are crystals that grow in highly regular angles with sharp edges
supposed to be "random, aimless, irregular, drifting, and winding?" You've shown right there that you cannot use criteria like "non-design....random, irregular, drifting and winding" versus "By contrast design would be straight
or sharp angles," to distinguish design from non-design. Crystals are an example of non-design with straight, sharp angles and any Jackson Pollock is
an exmple of design that looks "random, irregular, and drifting."
In Mexico there is a very warm cave where huge crystals grow, These crystals grow hapzardly, widely in
sizes and shapes. Other crystals in the same cave grow in straight round shapes and sizes. This is random growth.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/photos-mexico-cave-of-crystals
By Contrast: designed would be straight, or sharp angles
or identical carves and angles such as auto body lines and
shapes. Equal angles straight lines such as the great pyramid
at Giza. Straight rows of stones, or perfectly round structures.
Ruins of ancient cities with building having straight organized
parameters, decayed and weathered building structures. Artificial
materials such clothing found in a cave and shingies on a roof.
If and when we go to mars and suppose a structure with a
"door" whth two right angles and 2 perfectly straight, paralled
lines of stubs entering a room this wiould represent design.
Just to list a few with examples.
Examples are not what you need. You need specific criteria that distinguish
non-design from design. So far, you have not given any such criteria that clearly discriminate between things we know are designed and things we know
are not designed.
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>> to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista
Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi
Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8
Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v.
lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than
animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The
fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to
accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold,
R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of
goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no >reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
On Jan 19, 2023 at 10:43:25 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/18/23 2:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's >>> personal
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making >>>>> any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
Disagreeing with well-established facts shows that you don't know why
they are well-established, which means you are ignorant. And research
based on and adding to confirmation bias is worse than worthless.
There is no such "established facts"! It's all interpretation of the evidence educated guesses and the common accepted paradigm. Admittedly there
are several people on this NG with degrees in Biology. I did not study biology
as a profession, but I did study biology in high school for one year, However,
I am an engineer MsEE (_forced_ retirement due to health issues) But I did find new employment after about 3 weeks with an international engineering firm.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>> to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista
Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi
Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8
Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v.
lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than
animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The
fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to
accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold,
R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of
goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with
the list you cited....
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>>> to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista
Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi
Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8
Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v.
lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than
animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The
fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to
accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold,
R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of
goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with
the list you cited....
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>>>> to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista
Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi
Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8
Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v. >>>>> lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than
animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The >>>>> fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to >>>>> accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold, >>>>> R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of
goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no >>>> reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with
the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me
don't inform the discussion?
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista
Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi
Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8
Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v. >>>>>> lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than
animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The >>>>>> fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to >>>>>> accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold, >>>>>> R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no >>>>> reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with
the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me
don't inform the discussion?
question
and thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v. >>>>>>> lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The >>>>>>> fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to >>>>>>> accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold, >>>>>>> R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no >>>>>> reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me
don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this discussion.
and thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
On 1/22/23 10:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v. >>>>>>>> lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The >>>>>>>> fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to >>>>>>>> accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold, >>>>>>>> R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no >>>>>>> reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me >>>> don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this
discussion.
No, your ignorance is unfortunately not distinctively deep, as it seems >shared by many others. But you could at least try to repair it.
That point wasn't worth responding to, since Mark's point didn't informand thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
the topic.
And what's this about "multiple recognized phyla"? Did you
mean to say something else?
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:42:16 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 10:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully >>>>>>>> incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>>
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v. >>>>>>>>> lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The >>>>>>>>> fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to >>>>>>>>> accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold, >>>>>>>>> R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me >>>>> don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this
discussion.
No, your ignorance is unfortunately not distinctively deep, as it seems
shared by many others. But you could at least try to repair it.
Sure, just as soon as you identify your basis for alleging my deepity ignorantiosity, and explain how it informs this discussion, perhaps
after your nanny changes your twisted knappies.
That point wasn't worth responding to, since Mark's point didn't informand thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
the topic.
Odd you say that now, since you previously responded to Mark Isaak's
point, both still preserved in the quoted text above. Perhaps you
could share your feelings with him instead of me.
And what's this about "multiple recognized phyla"? Did you
mean to say something else?
Your dedication to trolling is remarkable.
On 1/22/23 2:32 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:42:16 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 10:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully >>>>>>>>> incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>>>
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v. >>>>>>>>>> lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The >>>>>>>>>> fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to >>>>>>>>>> accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold, >>>>>>>>>> R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me >>>>>> don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this
discussion.
No, your ignorance is unfortunately not distinctively deep, as it seems
shared by many others. But you could at least try to repair it.
Sure, just as soon as you identify your basis for alleging my deepity
ignorantiosity, and explain how it informs this discussion, perhaps
after your nanny changes your twisted knappies.
You seemed to think that your cited Wikipedia page was a good source for
the number of phyla of animals and others. If you didn't think so, why
did you cite it? But if you thought it was a good source, that would
show that you don't know much about the subject.
How it informs the discussion is that it points out a flawed data
source; further, non-animal phyla are not relevant to the actual topic;
that was Mark's digression.
That point wasn't worth responding to, since Mark's point didn't informand thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
the topic.
Odd you say that now, since you previously responded to Mark Isaak's
point, both still preserved in the quoted text above. Perhaps you
could share your feelings with him instead of me.
Following of discussions is not one of your skills.
And what's this about "multiple recognized phyla"? Did you
mean to say something else?
Your dedication to trolling is remarkable.
Not an answer to the question. But of course you don't care if people understand what you mean.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 2:32 PM, jillery wrote:You could be a bit less…well…Harsh. Try Sanka.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:42:16 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 10:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully >>>>>>>>>> incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>>>>
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v.
lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The
fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to
accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold,
R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>>>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me >>>>>>> don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this
discussion.
No, your ignorance is unfortunately not distinctively deep, as it seems >>>> shared by many others. But you could at least try to repair it.
Sure, just as soon as you identify your basis for alleging my deepity
ignorantiosity, and explain how it informs this discussion, perhaps
after your nanny changes your twisted knappies.
You seemed to think that your cited Wikipedia page was a good source for
the number of phyla of animals and others. If you didn't think so, why
did you cite it? But if you thought it was a good source, that would
show that you don't know much about the subject.
How it informs the discussion is that it points out a flawed data
source; further, non-animal phyla are not relevant to the actual topic;
that was Mark's digression.
That point wasn't worth responding to, since Mark's point didn't inform >>>> the topic.and thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
Odd you say that now, since you previously responded to Mark Isaak's
point, both still preserved in the quoted text above. Perhaps you
could share your feelings with him instead of me.
Following of discussions is not one of your skills.
And what's this about "multiple recognized phyla"? Did you
mean to say something else?
Your dedication to trolling is remarkable.
Not an answer to the question. But of course you don't care if people
understand what you mean.
On 1/22/23 2:32 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:42:16 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 10:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully >>>>>>>>> incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>>>
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v. >>>>>>>>>> lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The >>>>>>>>>> fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to >>>>>>>>>> accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold, >>>>>>>>>> R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me >>>>>> don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this
discussion.
No, your ignorance is unfortunately not distinctively deep, as it seems
shared by many others. But you could at least try to repair it.
Sure, just as soon as you identify your basis for alleging my deepity
ignorantiosity, and explain how it informs this discussion, perhaps
after your nanny changes your twisted knappies.
You seemed to think that your cited Wikipedia page was a good source for
the number of phyla of animals and others.
If you didn't think so, why
did you cite it? But if you thought it was a good source, that would
show that you don't know much about the subject.
How it informs the discussion is that it points out a flawed data
source;
further, non-animal phyla are not relevant to the actual topic;
that was Mark's digression.
That point wasn't worth responding to, since Mark's point didn't informand thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
the topic.
Odd you say that now, since you previously responded to Mark Isaak's
point, both still preserved in the quoted text above. Perhaps you
could share your feelings with him instead of me.
Following of discussions is not one of your skills.
And what's this about "multiple recognized phyla"? Did you
mean to say something else?
Your dedication to trolling is remarkable.
Not an answer to the question.
But of course you don't care if people understand what you mean.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 2:32 PM, jillery wrote:You could be a bit less…well…Harsh. Try Sanka.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:42:16 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 10:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully >>>>>>>>>> incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>>>>
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v.
lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The
fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to
accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold,
R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>>>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me >>>>>>> don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this
discussion.
No, your ignorance is unfortunately not distinctively deep, as it seems >>>> shared by many others. But you could at least try to repair it.
Sure, just as soon as you identify your basis for alleging my deepity
ignorantiosity, and explain how it informs this discussion, perhaps
after your nanny changes your twisted knappies.
You seemed to think that your cited Wikipedia page was a good source for
the number of phyla of animals and others. If you didn't think so, why
did you cite it? But if you thought it was a good source, that would
show that you don't know much about the subject.
How it informs the discussion is that it points out a flawed data
source; further, non-animal phyla are not relevant to the actual topic;
that was Mark's digression.
That point wasn't worth responding to, since Mark's point didn't inform >>>> the topic.and thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
Odd you say that now, since you previously responded to Mark Isaak's
point, both still preserved in the quoted text above. Perhaps you
could share your feelings with him instead of me.
Following of discussions is not one of your skills.
And what's this about "multiple recognized phyla"? Did you
mean to say something else?
Your dedication to trolling is remarkable.
Not an answer to the question. But of course you don't care if people
understand what you mean.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:46:02 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 20, 2023 at 4:08:10 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:50:15 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>I have stated on many occasion that there is evidence which can be
wrote:<>[snip]
Atheism contradicts design? No. Jill that's was never my claim.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squareswrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>>>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>>>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>>>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To >>>>>>>>> rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force >>>>>>>>> driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what >>>>>>>>> is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and >>>>>>>>> Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people >>>>>>> of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
with design.
Once again, it's *your* claim that atheism contradicts design. Your >>>>> claim puts the burden on you to back it up, which you have never done >>>>> in your posts to T.O.
What I said, the main reason atheist reject design is because design
implies a designer which in the atheist mindset is God.
If I inaccurately paraphrased your claim, I apologize. However, you
don't make clear any distinction. Why is that?
Also, you presume to know atheists' mindset, again without providing
any basis for that presumption. Why is that?
My experience is atheists who reject purposeful Design do so because
there is no evidence for purposeful Design. IOW God has nothing to do
with their conclusion.
And you *still* don't address the point I have repeatedly raised, that
when you claim atheists *reject* purposeful Design because they're
atheists, that necessarily implies you *accept* purposeful Design
because of you believe in God, which contradicts your repeated claim
that you don't presume God is your Designer.
interpreted as supporting design. However, I also stated that I know
of no evidence that points to the identity of the designer. So, what I
personally believe or don't believe is my personal faith
which is no issue.
Since you say what you personally believe is no issue to Design, then
you should stop claiming what you think atheists personally believe is
an issue to Design, especially when you state no basis for thinking
it. Not sure how you *still* don't understand this.
snip]I have aregued that design implies a designer, the alien aspect was not
Aliens don't rescue purposeful Design in any meaningful way. The only
difference to Design between unspecified aliens and unspecified Gods
is the name. What remains missing is the dots which connect your
presumption of a purposeful Designer with the things you claim It has
done.
a position of mine, but I can accept that you or someone else's idea
is an alien. Ok, I have no problem with that. It's your right.
Once again you missed the point and ignored the questions I asked.
Did I accouse you of being an atheist, if I did I'm sorry. I don't know and >> had no right.OTOH Harran did not claim that "atheism squares with design", and so >>>>> has no burden to show that it does. What you do here with Harran is >>>>> the same as you did previously with me, to evade your burden by<>"Atheism squares with design", was my phraseing. I did not credit
raising a false equivalence. Do you really not understand how
dishonest this is?
Hurran for this wording.
Don't play that game. I know you know I didn't say you did. Instead,
you explicitly accused me of being atheist, based solely on my
insistence that you back up your claims.
Once again, the problem is that you repeatedly raise the issue of
atheism in others while at the same time you insist your belief in God doesn't affect your opinions about Design.
And you accused others basedYou are reading too mush into what I write.
solely on their rejection of the Designer Inference. And you
questioned the sincerity and integrity of professional scientists
generally for similar reasons. And you have done this many times. And
you have been corrected many times, in vain. You can't reasonably
pass it off now as some innocent misunderstanding on your part.
I bet 100 Quatloos that sooner or later, you will again raise the
issue of others' alleged atheism.
What I wrote is my honest
opinion. Darwin hoped that future research would find evidence of his
theory, specifically, he was concerned about the missing intermediates
fossils preceeditg the Cambrian Explosion. And followers of Darwin with
this goal in mind could point to certain fossils as transitional. But my
question is: how can anyone know what they point to is simply "best in
the field"? I think it's a fair question.
Your question above is not a fair one, because it's based on an
invalid strawman understanding of what scientists mean by
"transitional forms".
Once again, almost all fossils have a mix of features from older and
younger organisms. That's what makes them transitional forms.
Archaeopteryx will always be transitional between birds and reptiles,
no matter how many older transitional forms are found. Same for
Tiktaalik and Dimetrodon and Australopithecus afarensis and Eohippus
and Pakicetus and all the other transitional forms you say don't
exist.
When someone suggested that atheist
could believe design: aliens could be the designers. I surrendered,
I knew there was no way I could counter this argument. I am not
dishonest. I did not think that you ever engaged with personal assault >>>> character assissanition or individual insults. I'm disappointed.
Once again you play the victim card, when it is you, Ron Dean, who
cynically and mindlessly challenge the motives and integrity of
others. Who do you think you're fooling?
What Harran did say above is to identify people who self-identify as >>>>> God believers and also reject design, which directly contradicts your >>>>> claim.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting designHowever, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but >>>>>>> that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..." >>>>>>> roundabout.
I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer
for themselves.
Apparently you're unwilling/unable to answer for yourself.
If a transitional fossil is not a_link_ between a direct ancestor species and a later species, of what value is it to evolution? I will admit that this could represent an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.
But this does no answer the appearence of virtually every major modern
phyla, during the Cambrian with no direct links to earlier phyla during the preCambrian.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:37:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 2:32 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:42:16 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 10:09 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:12:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 11:57 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:46:33 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. I failed to understand the depth of your ignorance on this
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 4:29 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:19:58 -0800, John HarshmanMust you always be a useless taker of offense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/21/23 12:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNote that the list of animal phyla in that article is woefully >>>>>>>>>> incomplete and out of date, especially regarding ecdysozoans. I have no
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>>>>
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
According to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>
there are 5 phyla in the Monera Kingdom, 10 phyla in the Protista >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdom, 6 phyla in the Plantae Kingdom, and 8 phyla in the Fungi >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdom.
The article goes on to describe classifications of 3,4,6,7, and 8 >>>>>>>>>>> Kingdoms, and sorting phyla among them; another case of splitters v.
lumpers.
You're correct about the larger point, there's more to life than >>>>>>>>>>> animal phyla, which are by definition multicellular eukaryotes. The
fossil evidence shows it took billions of years for life on Earth to
accumulate the information necessary to evolve them.
Like some undisciplined teenage boy ignoring all but the centerfold,
R.Dean handwaves away the boring but necessary billions of years of >>>>>>>>>>> goo and jumps straight to the Cambrian money-shot.
reason to expect the non-animals to be any better.
You're right. How silly of me. Let me compare the list I cited with >>>>>>>>> the list you cited....
Must you always twist your knappies when I note how your replies to me >>>>>>> don't inform the discussion?
question
Your replies illustrate a transparent emotional reaction to being
outed over your failure to actually address the point Mark Isaak
raised. And so you claim without expressed basis that my ignorance
has distinctive depthiness, as if my alleged ignorance informs this
discussion.
No, your ignorance is unfortunately not distinctively deep, as it seems >>>> shared by many others. But you could at least try to repair it.
Sure, just as soon as you identify your basis for alleging my deepity
ignorantiosity, and explain how it informs this discussion, perhaps
after your nanny changes your twisted knappies.
You seemed to think that your cited Wikipedia page was a good source for
the number of phyla of animals and others.
Wikipedia seems to think so as well. As I previously pointed out, the article I cited shows there is disagreement among taxonomic lumpers
and splitters, not just about phyla but also about Kingdoms. Even
your belated cite shows that.
WRT classifying different organisms, I leave that to those whose get
paid to decide such things. That point doesn't inform this
discussion. What does is the fact there are more recognized phyla
than R.Dean and his sources have cited.
My understanding is the same as Mark Isaak's, that most of them have
no fossil record in the Cambrian. Why not troll him as well?
If you didn't think so, why
did you cite it? But if you thought it was a good source, that would
show that you don't know much about the subject.
Based on your comments above, that means you think your belated cite
is relevant. So why didn't you post it before I pointed out your
failure to do so? And whatever you think the topic is about, it is
not about how to classify different organisms.
How it informs the discussion is that it points out a flawed data
source;
Even if so, it's a point not relevant to the topic.
further, non-animal phyla are not relevant to the actual topic;
that was Mark's digression.
That's another one of your claims without expressed basis. Not sure
how you insist non-animal phyla aren't relevant to how many phyla
don't appear in Cambrian fossils. Perhaps you would find the time to
explain yourself if you stopped wasting time twisting your knappies.
That point wasn't worth responding to, since Mark's point didn't inform >>>> the topic.and thought that a mere reminder would be sufficient.
Wikipedia's page on phyla has a better list. Do you know what
ecdysozoans are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
Now that you have tacitly affirmed there exist multiple recognized
phyla, and if you are finished twisting your knappies, perhaps you
will demonstrate your understanding of how these things inform the
point Mark Isaak raised?
Odd you say that now, since you previously responded to Mark Isaak's
point, both still preserved in the quoted text above. Perhaps you
could share your feelings with him instead of me.
Following of discussions is not one of your skills.
And yet another of your asinine ad-hominems. Too bad for you the
quoted text shows it's you, John Harshman, who has no idea what this
topic is about.
And what's this about "multiple recognized phyla"? Did you
mean to say something else?
Your dedication to trolling is remarkable.
Not an answer to the question.
To paraphrase someone you regard so highly, your question wasn't worth responding to.
But of course you don't care if people understand what you mean.
Sez the troll as he posts yet another asinine ad-hominem. You're embarrassing yourself.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:03:55 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 20, 2023 at 4:00:41 AM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:03:57 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>Mark did _not_ insult me, you did.
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2023 at 10:43:25 AM EST, "Mark Isaak"
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/18/23 2:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:23:58 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:44:46 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonIn other words, if you disagree, you're ignorant! No allowance for one's >>>>>> personal
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron's river of ignorance runs in a deep channel. No one seems to making
any impresion on his impressions.
Exactly so.
conclusions based on one's own research.
I'm disappointed in you, Jill.
Disagreeing with well-established facts shows that you don't know why >>>>> they are well-established, which means you are ignorant. And research >>>>> based on and adding to confirmation bias is worse than worthless.
There is no such "established facts"! It's all interpretation of the evidence
educated guesses and the common accepted paradigm. Admittedly there
are several people on this NG with degrees in Biology. I did not study biology
as a profession, but I did study biology in high school for one year, However,
I am an engineer MsEE (_forced_ retirement due to health issues) But I did >>>> find new employment after about 3 weeks with an international engineering >>>> firm.
Thank you, Mark
So even though both Mark and I make similar points using similar
words, you give Mark a "thank you", while you give me a
"disappointed". How sincere is that?
Cite and specify where you think I insulted you.
On 1/22/23 9:34 PM, jillery wrote:
My understanding is the same as Mark Isaak's, that most of them have
no fossil record in the Cambrian. Why not troll him as well?
You mistake correction for trolling. And that's true only if we consider
all phyla, not just animal phyla, which is a big change of subject.
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively >about animals.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 07:48:46 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/22/23 9:34 PM, jillery wrote:
<snip for focus>
My understanding is the same as Mark Isaak's, that most of them have
no fossil record in the Cambrian. Why not troll him as well?
You mistake correction for trolling. And that's true only if we consider
all phyla, not just animal phyla, which is a big change of subject.
To the contrary, you mistake trolling for correction
, a mistake shared
by other trolls, whom you ape when you reply to me. It's as if you're stretching out this stupid manufactured argument until your strange
bedfellow PeeWee Peter returns to add his obfuscating noise to yours.
And you *still* haven't explained why you insist "all phyla" is a
change of subject, nevermind a big one. Who made you Topic God?
Refresh your convenient amnesia. Go back and read the previous posts.
Do you even care what is R.Dean's challenge? Or Mark Isaak's
challenge to R.Dean? Neither specified animal phyla. Nor would they,
as that would weaken their challenges.
Get back to me if you grow up enough to show you're more interested in discussing the topic than in trolling for the sake of it.
On Jan 21, 2023 at 3:35:18 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:46:02 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 20, 2023 at 4:08:10 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:50:15 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>I have stated on many occasion that there is evidence which can be
wrote:<>[snip]
Atheism contradicts design? No. Jill that's was never my claim.If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squaresSorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To >>>>>>>>> rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force >>>>>>>>> driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, whatwrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it
conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square
it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis
Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with
considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is
their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence. >>>>>>>>>
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and >>>>>>>>> Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
with design.
Once again, it's *your* claim that atheism contradicts design. Your >>>>> claim puts the burden on you to back it up, which you have never done >>>>> in your posts to T.O.
What I said, the main reason atheist reject design is because design >>>> implies a designer which in the atheist mindset is God.
If I inaccurately paraphrased your claim, I apologize. However, you
don't make clear any distinction. Why is that?
Also, you presume to know atheists' mindset, again without providing
any basis for that presumption. Why is that?
My experience is atheists who reject purposeful Design do so because
there is no evidence for purposeful Design. IOW God has nothing to do >>> with their conclusion.
And you *still* don't address the point I have repeatedly raised, that >>> when you claim atheists *reject* purposeful Design because they're
atheists, that necessarily implies you *accept* purposeful Design
because of you believe in God, which contradicts your repeated claim
that you don't presume God is your Designer.
interpreted as supporting design. However, I also stated that I know
of no evidence that points to the identity of the designer. So, what I
personally believe or don't believe is my personal faith
which is no issue.
Since you say what you personally believe is no issue to Design, then
you should stop claiming what you think atheists personally believe is
an issue to Design, especially when you state no basis for thinking
it. Not sure how you *still* don't understand this.
The word itself atheist, a-theist speaks for itself. Which, like theist is
a matter of belief, because no-one can know for a fact~!
snip]I have aregued that design implies a designer, the alien aspect was not >> a position of mine, but I can accept that you or someone else's idea
Aliens don't rescue purposeful Design in any meaningful way. The only >>> difference to Design between unspecified aliens and unspecified Gods
is the name. What remains missing is the dots which connect your
presumption of a purposeful Designer with the things you claim It has >>> done.
is an alien. Ok, I have no problem with that. It's your right.
Once again you missed the point and ignored the questions I asked.
Sorry, I don't remember your question.
Did I accouse you of being an atheist, if I did I'm sorry. I don't know andOTOH Harran did not claim that "atheism squares with design", and so >>>>> has no burden to show that it does. What you do here with Harran is >>>>> the same as you did previously with me, to evade your burden by<>"Atheism squares with design", was my phraseing. I did not credit >>>> Hurran for this wording.
raising a false equivalence. Do you really not understand how
dishonest this is?
Don't play that game. I know you know I didn't say you did. Instead,
you explicitly accused me of being atheist, based solely on my
insistence that you back up your claims.
had no right.
Once again, the problem is that you repeatedly raise the issue of
atheism in others while at the same time you insist your belief in God doesn't affect your opinions about Design.
i never bring religion, the bible or religious materials into any discussion.
So, my belief or lack of is no issue.
I bet 100 Quatloos that sooner or later, you will again raise the
issue of others' alleged atheism.
I've raised atheism only as non-belief in theism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism
What I wrote is my honest
opinion. Darwin hoped that future research would find evidence of his
theory, specifically, he was concerned about the missing intermediates
fossils preceeditg the Cambrian Explosion. And followers of Darwin with >> this goal in mind could point to certain fossils as transitional. But my >> question is: how can anyone know what they point to is simply "best in
the field"? I think it's a fair question.
Your question above is not a fair one, because it's based on an
invalid strawman understanding of what scientists mean by
"transitional forms".
Once again, almost all fossils have a mix of features from older and younger organisms. That's what makes them transitional forms. Archaeopteryx will always be transitional between birds and reptiles,
no matter how many older transitional forms are found. Same for
Tiktaalik and Dimetrodon and Australopithecus afarensis and Eohippus
and Pakicetus and all the other transitional forms you say don't
exist.
If a transitional fossil is not a _link_ between a direct ancestor species and a later species, of what value is it to evolution? I will admit that this
could represent an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.
But this does no answer the appearence of virtually every major modern phyla, during the Cambrian with no direct links to earlier phyla during the preCambrian.
When someone suggested that atheist
could believe design: aliens could be the designers. I surrendered, >>>> I knew there was no way I could counter this argument. I am not
dishonest. I did not think that you ever engaged with personal assault >>>> character assissanition or individual insults. I'm disappointed.
Once again you play the victim card, when it is you, Ron Dean, who
cynically and mindlessly challenge the motives and integrity of
others. Who do you think you're fooling?
What Harran did say above is to identify people who self-identify as >>>>> God believers and also reject design, which directly contradicts your >>>>> claim.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting designHowever, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but
that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..." >>>>>>> roundabout.
I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer
for themselves.
Apparently you're unwilling/unable to answer for yourself.
[...]i never bring religion, the bible or religious materials into any discussion. So, my belief or lack of is no issue.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are.
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively >> about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are.
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively >>> about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are.
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively >>>> about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are.
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything >>>> R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
On Jan 15, 2023 at 9:35:35 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:06:32 GMT, the following appeared inOk, non design is almost always random, aimless, irregular
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 13, 2023 at 8:37:19 PM EST, "Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >>>You have not identified a way in which design can be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com><snip>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
You make this assertion repeatedly, that design can be
...ID cannot
identify the designer. Only design.
identified *as* design. But when asked for a process by
which it can be identified as design, you fall silent or say
the equivalent of "It's obvious!", neither of which supports
your assertion.
I think that reproduction is an identifiable sign of design. It's
something that most organisms do not conscienically realize
the part they play in reproduction. It's the result of embedded
instinct. I would suspect that every organism from most
mammals and reptiles to lower forms fall into this category.
Examples:
The sea turtle breeds and lays 1000 eggs in a hole she dug
maybe 20% survive, does she know or care? Probably not,
what about the male. Does he decide I feel the responsibility
to perpetuate my species? Again, I say No. What then
~ instinct?
If so, where and what provided the instinct?
The flower in my wife's garden. Does it think to itself I need to
make some pollen, so a bee can take my pollen to a female
and we can have our own little bundles of joy? No.
My question;
What factors exist within the turtles or the flower that says I need
to reproduce? Did dead matter suddenly decide, within itself,
I must find some way to bring about life through my offspring.
If not which part of the inabinate lifeless matter made the decision
to experment with the desire to turn itself a organic molecule
then into life with the ultimate goal of the human brain?
I think the best answers these questions is intelligent planning
and design. And if design, then a designer is indicated.
unambiguously separated from non-design; examples of "looks
like" aren't criteria. How you "think" things should happen,
how you imagine reality to work, and arguments from
incredulity or ignorance, are irrelevant. You need a
*step-by step* process by which an unknown can be
objectively evaluated, and you *still* haven't produced one.
drifting and winding, such as a river, desert sand domes, the
irregular manor trees stands, sizes height differ, mountains with
rugged edges.
This includes crystals which grow in highly regular
angles with sharp edges exactly the same angles repeadily
hroughout the entire crystalline structure, volcano eruption
with lava splitting into streams flowing unparalleled.
By Contrast: designed would be straight, or sharp angles
or identical carves and angles such as auto body lines and
shapes. Equal angles straight lines such as the great pyramid
at Giza. Straight rows of stones, or perfectly round structures.
Ruins of ancient cities with building having straight organized
parameters, decayed and weathered building structures. Artificial
materials such clothing found in a cave and shingies on a roof.
If and when we go to mars and suppose a structure with a
"door" whth two right angles and 2 perfectly straight, paralled
lines of stubs entering a room this wiould represent design.
Just to list a few with examples.
On Jan 16, 2023 at 4:03:52 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 05:00:35 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>If I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. But please explain how atheism squares >with design.
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2023 at 9:06:22 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 01:28:59 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 10, 2023 at 6:51:27 AM EST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 04:50:24 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[...]
There's absolutely no way to demonstrate design to people whose paradigm
is atheism!
You persistently make this argument. Leaving aside the fact that it >>>>>> conflicts with your claim that ID is not religious, how do you square >>>>>> it with committed Christians rejecting ID, Ken Miller and Francis >>>>>> Collins being just two examples of particularly prominent ones with >>>>>> considerable scientific expertise?
I did not consider atheism a religion. Maybe I was wrong. But ID cannot >>>>> identify the designer. Only design. Anyone who assumes the designer is >>>>> their God, does this through faith not empirical evidence.
Sorry, Ron, that does not address the question I asked you. To
rephrase it for calrity, you have suggested that the main force
driving people here to reject ID is their atheism. In that case, what
is the main force driving committed Christians like Ken Miller and
Francis Collins to reject ID?
I do not know.
It should at least give you pause for thought before you accuse people
of being unable to accept ID due to their atheism.
Again ~ I wrote it's the main reason, not the only reason for rejecting design >I cannot answer for Ken Miller or Francis Collins. They would have to answer >for themselves.
However, there is always exceptions.
That's weak unless you can give some way of identifying exceptions but
that probably takes you back onto the "It looks that way to me ..."
roundabout.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense? >>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are.
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so, >>>>> that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything >>>>> R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof."
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than
did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense? >>>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are.
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so, >>>>>> that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything >>>>>> R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof."
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than
did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense? >>>>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so, >>>>>>> that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything >>>>>>> R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof."
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than
did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >targets?
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so, >>>>>>>> that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything >>>>>>>> R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than
did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better
targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so, >>>>>>>> that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better
targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
You should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I
think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 15:07:37 -0800 (PST), erik simpson ><eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:31:00 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>> >>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof."
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>> >>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >>> >> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I
think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You and everybody (well, almost everybody) knows this situation. Jillery makes and had made
many positive contributions to this circus, but there exists an event horizon. Once breached,
the playbook of stock phrases comes out and further communication is impossible.
My "contributions" here are to follow the lead of the posters to whom
I respond. That is all. Your commitment to "fair and balanced"
blinds you to the events as documented by the posts in the thread.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:31:00 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >> >>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >> >>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >> >>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >> >> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I
think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You and everybody (well, almost everybody) knows this situation. Jillery makes and had made
many positive contributions to this circus, but there exists an event horizon. Once breached,
the playbook of stock phrases comes out and further communication is impossible.
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so, >>>>>>>>> that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better
targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I
think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:27:23 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >>>> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I
think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You should follow your own advice. In this case, your "rancorous
verbiage" provided cover for R.Dean to dodge Mark Isaak's legitimate
and relevant challenge. IMO that's what sad about trolling your
stupid manufactured arguments. Apparently your mileage varies.
And to refresh your convenient amnesia, your initial "disagreement"
here was to criticize the Wiki page I cited, because you say it
contains <GASP> outdated taxonomic classifications.
And what twisted your knappies? Because in response to your pedantic criticism, I noted you had provided no cite about taxonomic
classifications. Bad jillery, bad! Bad!! BAD!!! So very bad.
Did you, John Harshman, acknowledge your failure? No. Instead you
took offense. And then blamed me for taking offense. And then you
punished me by trolling yet more stupid manufactured arguments and transparent personal attacks.
You are in no position to lecture me about my posts.
On 1/25/23 1:13 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:27:23 -0800, John HarshmanI believe your description of events mischaracterized each and every
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>>>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >>>>> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I
think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You should follow your own advice. In this case, your "rancorous
verbiage" provided cover for R.Dean to dodge Mark Isaak's legitimate
and relevant challenge. IMO that's what sad about trolling your
stupid manufactured arguments. Apparently your mileage varies.
And to refresh your convenient amnesia, your initial "disagreement"
here was to criticize the Wiki page I cited, because you say it
contains <GASP> outdated taxonomic classifications.
And what twisted your knappies? Because in response to your pedantic
criticism, I noted you had provided no cite about taxonomic
classifications. Bad jillery, bad! Bad!! BAD!!! So very bad.
Did you, John Harshman, acknowledge your failure? No. Instead you
took offense. And then blamed me for taking offense. And then you
punished me by trolling yet more stupid manufactured arguments and
transparent personal attacks.
You are in no position to lecture me about my posts.
one. To begin,
Ron Dean needs no cover to dodge anything, as he ignores
most posts and most content of the ones he responds to, learning
nothing, ever.
Second, Mark's challenge (I presume you mean regarding
non-animal phyla) was not actually relevant.
Third, if the relevant
point is, as it in fact is, about the proportion of animal phyla first
seen in the Cambrian explosion, one needs a reasonably accurate
assessment of the number of those phyla, which the Wikipedia article you >cited does not provide.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:08:45 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/23 1:13 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:27:23 -0800, John HarshmanI believe your description of events mischaracterized each and every
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you. >>>>>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>>>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>>>>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >>>>>> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I >>>> think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You should follow your own advice. In this case, your "rancorous
verbiage" provided cover for R.Dean to dodge Mark Isaak's legitimate
and relevant challenge. IMO that's what sad about trolling your
stupid manufactured arguments. Apparently your mileage varies.
And to refresh your convenient amnesia, your initial "disagreement"
here was to criticize the Wiki page I cited, because you say it
contains <GASP> outdated taxonomic classifications.
And what twisted your knappies? Because in response to your pedantic
criticism, I noted you had provided no cite about taxonomic
classifications. Bad jillery, bad! Bad!! BAD!!! So very bad.
Did you, John Harshman, acknowledge your failure? No. Instead you
took offense. And then blamed me for taking offense. And then you
punished me by trolling yet more stupid manufactured arguments and
transparent personal attacks.
You are in no position to lecture me about my posts.
one. To begin,
I note that your three events you identified below don't cover all the
events I described above, the first of which is you accusing me of
taking offense when it was you who twisted your knappies over what you
should have simply acknowledged as an oversight.
Ron Dean needs no cover to dodge anything, as he ignores
most posts and most content of the ones he responds to, learning
nothing, ever.
"cover" includes not just R.Dean ignoring posts, but also others
conveniently missing a relevant posts as it gets pushed down the stack
conveniently missing a relevant post as it gets pushed down the stack
with your willfully stupid trolling. In this case, that's the greater >effect; it makes it so much easier for your apologists to pretend they
never saw it, dontchaknow.
Second, Mark's challenge (I presume you mean regarding
non-animal phyla) was not actually relevant.
Ooh! Ooh! Yet another opinion repetitively asserted opinion without
Ooh! Ooh! Yet another repetitively asserted opinion without
basis. Perhaps you think it's just another "obvious" thingie you're
above explaining to the lowly masses.
Third, if the relevant
point is, as it in fact is, about the proportion of animal phyla first >>seen in the Cambrian explosion, one needs a reasonably accurate
assessment of the number of those phyla, which the Wikipedia article you >>cited does not provide.
Incorrect on two counts. First, the proportion you describe above
isn't relevant. Instead, it is the proportion of represented phyla in >Cambrian fossils versus the total number of phyla which actually lived
during the Cambrian. I acknowledge we can only estimate what is that
number. Apparently you *still* don't understand what is R.Dean's claim
and how Mark Isaak's challenge refutes it.
Second, even if the proportion you describe was relevant, a precise
ratio still would be pedantic noise, equivalent to arranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic, as R.Dean's claim is based on a wildly
inaccurate presumption that most if not all phyla which lived during
the Cambrian are represented in the known fossil record. I know you
know they almost certainly are not.
Based on the estimated number of living organisms which are preserved
Based on the estimated number of once-living organisms which are preserved
in the fossil record, my understanding is the known Cambrian phyla
could be multiplied tenfold and still wouldn't come close to the
number which likely lived during that time. Any taxonomic list,
obsolete or not, would demonstrate this. So your expressed criticism
is pedantic noise.
More to the point, I know you know multicellular animal phyla with
mineral hard parts are far more likely to preserve than soft and
unicellular animals and unicellular non-animals. For you to
mineral hard parts are far more likely to preserve than soft animals and >non-animals and unicellular organisms. For you to
arbitrarily dismiss non-animal taxa is blatant selection bias, a point
to which Ernest Major alludes.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:31:00 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
You should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You and everybody (well, almost everybody) knows this situation. Jillery makes and had made
many positive contributions to this circus, but there exists an event horizon. Once breached,
the playbook of stock phrases comes out and further communication is impossible.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:08:45 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/23 1:13 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:27:23 -0800, John HarshmanI believe your description of events mischaracterized each and every
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you. >>>>>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>>>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>>>>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >>>>>> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I >>>> think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You should follow your own advice. In this case, your "rancorous
verbiage" provided cover for R.Dean to dodge Mark Isaak's legitimate
and relevant challenge. IMO that's what sad about trolling your
stupid manufactured arguments. Apparently your mileage varies.
And to refresh your convenient amnesia, your initial "disagreement"
here was to criticize the Wiki page I cited, because you say it
contains <GASP> outdated taxonomic classifications.
And what twisted your knappies? Because in response to your pedantic
criticism, I noted you had provided no cite about taxonomic
classifications. Bad jillery, bad! Bad!! BAD!!! So very bad.
Did you, John Harshman, acknowledge your failure? No. Instead you
took offense. And then blamed me for taking offense. And then you
punished me by trolling yet more stupid manufactured arguments and
transparent personal attacks.
You are in no position to lecture me about my posts.
one. To begin,
I note that your three events you identified below don't cover all the
events I described above, the first of which is you accusing me of
taking offense when it was you who twisted your knappies over what you
should have simply acknowledged as an oversight.
Ron Dean needs no cover to dodge anything, as he ignores
most posts and most content of the ones he responds to, learning
nothing, ever.
"cover" includes not just R.Dean ignoring posts, but also others
conveniently missing a relevant posts as it gets pushed down the stack
with your willfully stupid trolling. In this case, that's the greater effect; it makes it so much easier for your apologists to pretend they
never saw it, dontchaknow.
Second, Mark's challenge (I presume you mean regarding
non-animal phyla) was not actually relevant.
Ooh! Ooh! Yet another opinion repetitively asserted opinion without
basis. Perhaps you think it's just another "obvious" thingie you're
above explaining to the lowly masses.
Third, if the relevant
point is, as it in fact is, about the proportion of animal phyla first
seen in the Cambrian explosion, one needs a reasonably accurate
assessment of the number of those phyla, which the Wikipedia article you
cited does not provide.
Incorrect on two counts. First, the proportion you describe above
isn't relevant. Instead, it is the proportion of represented phyla in Cambrian fossils versus the total number of phyla which actually lived
during the Cambrian. I acknowledge we can only estimate what is that
number. Apparently you *still* don't understand what is R.Dean's claim
and how Mark Isaak's challenge refutes it.
Second, even if the proportion you describe was relevant, a precise
ratio still would be pedantic noise, equivalent to arranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic, as R.Dean's claim is based on a wildly
inaccurate presumption that most if not all phyla which lived during
the Cambrian are represented in the known fossil record. I know you
know they almost certainly are not.
Based on the estimated number of living organisms which are preserved
in the fossil record, my understanding is the known Cambrian phyla
could be multiplied tenfold and still wouldn't come close to the
number which likely lived during that time. Any taxonomic list,
obsolete or not, would demonstrate this. So your expressed criticism
is pedantic noise.
More to the point, I know you know multicellular animal phyla with
mineral hard parts are far more likely to preserve than soft and
unicellular animals and unicellular non-animals. For you to
arbitrarily dismiss non-animal taxa is blatant selection bias, a point
to which Ernest Major alludes.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:08:45 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/25/23 1:13 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:27:23 -0800, John HarshmanI believe your description of events mischaracterized each and every
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/24/23 8:45 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:24:47 +0100, Athel Cornish-BowdenYou should consider thinking about the arguments (by which I mean not
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-01-24 14:08:10 +0000, John Harshman said:
On 1/24/23 12:32 AM, jillery wrote:I feel a little sad that two of the most intelligent and useful
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:18:45 -0800, John HarshmanNo problem. The situation will be obvious to anyone who isn't you. >>>>>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:38:37 -0800, John HarshmanSure, no problem: no, it did not, and no, it did not.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/23 9:54 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:18:27 -0800, John HarshmanAsk yourself: did that post contribute anything? Did it even make sense?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently, I'm better able to understand context than you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently not.
The topic at hand is Ron Dean's, and the Cambrian explosion is exclusively
about animals.
So you suppose there were no non-animals during the Cambrian? If so,
that would be a miraculous food web you suppose, the equal of anything
R.Dean suggests.
You first, troll.
"That which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof." >>>>>>>>
So following your lead, yes, it did and yes, it did. A lot more than >>>>>>>> did your "You're saying that I'm trolling by accident?"
And you don't qualify your "it".
So many willfully stupid trolls, so little time.
contributors to this group are having this war. Surely there are better >>>>>> targets?
Apparently the only way Harshman knows how to reply to me is with
stupid manufactured arguments. He's been doing it for years.
the rancorous verbiage but the actual claims and expressed reasons). I >>>> think you are too quick to assume that any disagreement is an attack.
You should follow your own advice. In this case, your "rancorous
verbiage" provided cover for R.Dean to dodge Mark Isaak's legitimate
and relevant challenge. IMO that's what sad about trolling your
stupid manufactured arguments. Apparently your mileage varies.
And to refresh your convenient amnesia, your initial "disagreement"
here was to criticize the Wiki page I cited, because you say it
contains <GASP> outdated taxonomic classifications.
And what twisted your knappies? Because in response to your pedantic
criticism, I noted you had provided no cite about taxonomic
classifications. Bad jillery, bad! Bad!! BAD!!! So very bad.
Did you, John Harshman, acknowledge your failure? No. Instead you
took offense. And then blamed me for taking offense. And then you
punished me by trolling yet more stupid manufactured arguments and
transparent personal attacks.
You are in no position to lecture me about my posts.
one. To begin,
I note that your three events you identified below don't cover all the
events I described above, the first of which is you accusing me of
taking offense when it was you who twisted your knappies over what you
should have simply acknowledged as an oversight.
Ron Dean needs no cover to dodge anything, as he ignores
most posts and most content of the ones he responds to, learning
nothing, ever.
"cover" includes not just R.Dean ignoring posts, but also others
conveniently missing a relevant posts as it gets pushed down the stack
with your willfully stupid trolling. In this case, that's the greater effect; it makes it so much easier for your apologists to pretend they
never saw it, dontchaknow.
Second, Mark's challenge (I presume you mean regarding
non-animal phyla) was not actually relevant.
Ooh! Ooh! Yet another opinion repetitively asserted opinion without
basis. Perhaps you think it's just another "obvious" thingie you're
above explaining to the lowly masses.
Third, if the relevant
point is, as it in fact is, about the proportion of animal phyla first
seen in the Cambrian explosion, one needs a reasonably accurate
assessment of the number of those phyla, which the Wikipedia article you
cited does not provide.
Incorrect on two counts. First, the proportion you describe above
isn't relevant. Instead, it is the proportion of represented phyla in Cambrian fossils versus the total number of phyla which actually lived
during the Cambrian. I acknowledge we can only estimate what is that
number. Apparently you *still* don't understand what is R.Dean's claim
and how Mark Isaak's challenge refutes it.
Second, even if the proportion you describe was relevant, a precise
ratio still would be pedantic noise, equivalent to arranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic, as R.Dean's claim is based on a wildly
inaccurate presumption that most if not all phyla which lived during
the Cambrian are represented in the known fossil record. I know you
know they almost certainly are not.
Based on the estimated number of living organisms which are preserved
in the fossil record, my understanding is the known Cambrian phyla
could be multiplied tenfold and still wouldn't come close to the
number which likely lived during that time. Any taxonomic list,
obsolete or not, would demonstrate this. So your expressed criticism
is pedantic noise.
More to the point, I know you know multicellular animal phyla with
mineral hard parts are far more likely to preserve than soft and
unicellular animals and unicellular non-animals. For you to
arbitrarily dismiss non-animal taxa is blatant selection bias, a point
to which Ernest Major alludes.
Fourth attempt to respond, necessarily brief.
All this is based on a misunderstanding of Ron Dean leaving "animal" out
of his claim about phyla. The Cambrian explosion is exclusively about >animals. Every scientific or popular publication on the subject concerns >animals. That's why the subtitle of Erwin & Valentine's book is "The >Construction of Animal Biodiversity". Non-animals are not relevant.
There are other points I could take issue with, but that's the one that
I have patience for now.
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >> to zero.
all.
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely
about animals.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:17:39 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>> to zero.
all.
Do you have any reason to doubt there existed Cambrian water plants?
Do you presume eukaryote plants and animals have no common ancestor?
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely
about animals.
Cambrian fossils of non-animals:
<https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2009/08/09/middle-cambrian-stromatolites-high-in-the-canadian-rockies/>
On 1/27/23 12:34 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:17:39 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>> to zero.
all.
Do you have any reason to doubt there existed Cambrian water plants?
Yes, though there may be some confusion here about what "plant" means.
It's a clade, Embryophyta, consisting of mosses, liverworts, horsetails, >ferns, and seed plants. Algae are not plants. Green algae are closely >related to plants, but they aren't plants. Brown algae, red algae, etc.
are not even that closely related to plants.
Do you presume eukaryote plants and animals have no common ancestor?
Of course not. Why would you raise such a silly notion?
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely
about animals.
Cambrian fossils of non-animals:
<https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2009/08/09/middle-cambrian-stromatolites-high-in-the-canadian-rockies/>
What is the point here? Yes, there are non-animal fossils in the
Cambrian. But that has nothing to do with Ron Dean's claims.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 06:15:59 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/23 12:34 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:17:39 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>>> to zero.
all.
Do you have any reason to doubt there existed Cambrian water plants?
Yes, though there may be some confusion here about what "plant" means.
Let's avoid additional obfuscating noise. In this context, I use
"plant" to refer to multicellular eukaryotes which have chloroplasts
and cell walls. Single-celled eukaryotes aren't plants the same way single-celled metazoa aren't animals; by definition. This may not be
a standard definition, but it's close enough for this topic.
And to be explicitly clear, I use "non-animal" to mean all organisms
not animals, which includes plants but isn't limited to them.
And as usual, you don't identify your reason to doubt there existed
Cambrian water plants. So much for your commitment to "correction".
It's a clade, Embryophyta, consisting of mosses, liverworts, horsetails,
ferns, and seed plants. Algae are not plants. Green algae are closely
related to plants, but they aren't plants. Brown algae, red algae, etc.
are not even that closely related to plants.
Do you presume eukaryote plants and animals have no common ancestor?
Of course not. Why would you raise such a silly notion?
Since you asked, because you, John Harshman, continue to troll your
silly notions; 1. the Cambrian Explosion is "exclusively about
animals", and 2. the existence of Cambrian non-animals doesn't inform R.Dean's claims. You're welcome.
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely
about animals.
Cambrian fossils of non-animals:
<https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2009/08/09/middle-cambrian-stromatolites-high-in-the-canadian-rockies/>
What is the point here? Yes, there are non-animal fossils in the
Cambrian. But that has nothing to do with Ron Dean's claims.
That you think the existence of Cambrian non-animals has nothing to do
with R.Dean's claims shows you don't understand R.Dean's claims.
On 1/27/23 8:51 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 06:15:59 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/23 12:34 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:17:39 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at >>>>> all.
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
Do you have any reason to doubt there existed Cambrian water plants?
Yes, though there may be some confusion here about what "plant" means.
Let's avoid additional obfuscating noise. In this context, I use
"plant" to refer to multicellular eukaryotes which have chloroplasts
and cell walls. Single-celled eukaryotes aren't plants the same way
single-celled metazoa aren't animals; by definition. This may not be
a standard definition, but it's close enough for this topic.
It's not a standard definition and it definitely isn't close enough for
this topic.
And to be explicitly clear, I use "non-animal" to mean all organisms
not animals, which includes plants but isn't limited to them.
That, at least, has always been clear.
And as usual, you don't identify your reason to doubt there existed
Cambrian water plants. So much for your commitment to "correction".
The reason is simple: all modern water plants are angiosperms, and >angiosperms did not evolve before the Jurassic at the earliest. It's >conceivable there were non-angiosperm water plants once, but I don't
know of any fossils, so there seems no reason to think they existed.
Note again that I am using the standard definition of "plant", which you >apparently were not. None of this is relevant, in any case, to the
Cambrian explosion.
It's a clade, Embryophyta, consisting of mosses, liverworts, horsetails, >>> ferns, and seed plants. Algae are not plants. Green algae are closely
related to plants, but they aren't plants. Brown algae, red algae, etc.
are not even that closely related to plants.
Do you presume eukaryote plants and animals have no common ancestor?
Of course not. Why would you raise such a silly notion?
Since you asked, because you, John Harshman, continue to troll your
silly notions; 1. the Cambrian Explosion is "exclusively about
animals", and 2. the existence of Cambrian non-animals doesn't inform
R.Dean's claims. You're welcome.
I don't see how the idea that plants and animals have no common ancestor >relates in any way to either 1 or 2. And of course both 1 and 2 are
true. Again, see Erwin & Valentine.
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely
about animals.
Cambrian fossils of non-animals:
<https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2009/08/09/middle-cambrian-stromatolites-high-in-the-canadian-rockies/>
What is the point here? Yes, there are non-animal fossils in the
Cambrian. But that has nothing to do with Ron Dean's claims.
That you think the existence of Cambrian non-animals has nothing to do
with R.Dean's claims shows you don't understand R.Dean's claims.
In my opinion, you're the one who doesn't understand his claims. Of
course we can't ask him. But perhaps you could quote one of his claims
for which non-animals are relevant.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:41:45 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
On 1/27/23 8:51 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 06:15:59 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/23 12:34 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:17:39 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at >>>>>> all.
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
Do you have any reason to doubt there existed Cambrian water plants?
Yes, though there may be some confusion here about what "plant" means.
Let's avoid additional obfuscating noise. In this context, I use
"plant" to refer to multicellular eukaryotes which have chloroplasts
and cell walls. Single-celled eukaryotes aren't plants the same way
single-celled metazoa aren't animals; by definition. This may not be
a standard definition, but it's close enough for this topic.
It's not a standard definition and it definitely isn't close enough for
this topic.
Once again, you criticize what I provide without 1. citing an
alternative of your own, or 2. identifying the basis of your
criticism. Why is that?
And to be explicitly clear, I use "non-animal" to mean all organisms
not animals, which includes plants but isn't limited to them.
That, at least, has always been clear.
Mirabile dictu.
And as usual, you don't identify your reason to doubt there existed
Cambrian water plants. So much for your commitment to "correction".
The reason is simple: all modern water plants are angiosperms, and
angiosperms did not evolve before the Jurassic at the earliest. It's
conceivable there were non-angiosperm water plants once, but I don't
know of any fossils, so there seems no reason to think they existed.
Note again that I am using the standard definition of "plant", which you
apparently were not. None of this is relevant, in any case, to the
Cambrian explosion.
Hard to note what you don't provide.
It's a clade, Embryophyta, consisting of mosses, liverworts, horsetails, >>>> ferns, and seed plants. Algae are not plants. Green algae are closely
related to plants, but they aren't plants. Brown algae, red algae, etc. >>>> are not even that closely related to plants.
Do you presume eukaryote plants and animals have no common ancestor?
Of course not. Why would you raise such a silly notion?
Since you asked, because you, John Harshman, continue to troll your
silly notions; 1. the Cambrian Explosion is "exclusively about
animals", and 2. the existence of Cambrian non-animals doesn't inform
R.Dean's claims. You're welcome.
I don't see how the idea that plants and animals have no common ancestor
relates in any way to either 1 or 2. And of course both 1 and 2 are
true. Again, see Erwin & Valentine.
Of course you don't, and of course you don't say why. You don't even
quote your source. If only I hadn't sold my copy to finance my
vacation.
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely
about animals.
Cambrian fossils of non-animals:
<https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2009/08/09/middle-cambrian-stromatolites-high-in-the-canadian-rockies/>
What is the point here? Yes, there are non-animal fossils in the
Cambrian. But that has nothing to do with Ron Dean's claims.
That you think the existence of Cambrian non-animals has nothing to do
with R.Dean's claims shows you don't understand R.Dean's claims.
In my opinion, you're the one who doesn't understand his claims. Of
course we can't ask him. But perhaps you could quote one of his claims
for which non-animals are relevant.
Sure, just as soon as you quote one of his claims for which
non-animals are excluded, and specify why you think his claims exclude non-animals. Good luck with that.
On 1/27/23 9:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:41:45 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
On 1/27/23 8:51 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 06:15:59 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/23 12:34 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:17:39 -0800, John HarshmanYes, though there may be some confusion here about what "plant" means. >>>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at >>>>>>> all.
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>
to zero.
Do you have any reason to doubt there existed Cambrian water plants? >>>>>
Let's avoid additional obfuscating noise. In this context, I use
"plant" to refer to multicellular eukaryotes which have chloroplasts
and cell walls. Single-celled eukaryotes aren't plants the same way
single-celled metazoa aren't animals; by definition. This may not be
a standard definition, but it's close enough for this topic.
It's not a standard definition and it definitely isn't close enough for
this topic.
Once again, you criticize what I provide without 1. citing an
alternative of your own, or 2. identifying the basis of your
criticism. Why is that?
And to be explicitly clear, I use "non-animal" to mean all organisms
not animals, which includes plants but isn't limited to them.
That, at least, has always been clear.
Mirabile dictu.
And as usual, you don't identify your reason to doubt there existed
Cambrian water plants. So much for your commitment to "correction".
The reason is simple: all modern water plants are angiosperms, and
angiosperms did not evolve before the Jurassic at the earliest. It's
conceivable there were non-angiosperm water plants once, but I don't
know of any fossils, so there seems no reason to think they existed.
Note again that I am using the standard definition of "plant", which you >>> apparently were not. None of this is relevant, in any case, to the
Cambrian explosion.
Hard to note what you don't provide.
It's a clade, Embryophyta, consisting of mosses, liverworts, horsetails, >>>>> ferns, and seed plants. Algae are not plants. Green algae are closely >>>>> related to plants, but they aren't plants. Brown algae, red algae, etc. >>>>> are not even that closely related to plants.
Do you presume eukaryote plants and animals have no common ancestor? >>>>>Of course not. Why would you raise such a silly notion?
Since you asked, because you, John Harshman, continue to troll your
silly notions; 1. the Cambrian Explosion is "exclusively about
animals", and 2. the existence of Cambrian non-animals doesn't inform
R.Dean's claims. You're welcome.
I don't see how the idea that plants and animals have no common ancestor >>> relates in any way to either 1 or 2. And of course both 1 and 2 are
true. Again, see Erwin & Valentine.
Of course you don't, and of course you don't say why. You don't even
quote your source. If only I hadn't sold my copy to finance my
vacation.
If by "cited" you mean some authoritative publication, neither did you.
If you mean an explanation of the meaning of the term, I did that in the >previous post. You are using an old meaning that makes a polyphyletic
group, and these days that isn't considered a good thing.
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely
about animals.
Cambrian fossils of non-animals:
<https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2009/08/09/middle-cambrian-stromatolites-high-in-the-canadian-rockies/>
What is the point here? Yes, there are non-animal fossils in the
Cambrian. But that has nothing to do with Ron Dean's claims.
That you think the existence of Cambrian non-animals has nothing to do >>>> with R.Dean's claims shows you don't understand R.Dean's claims.
In my opinion, you're the one who doesn't understand his claims. Of
course we can't ask him. But perhaps you could quote one of his claims
for which non-animals are relevant.
Sure, just as soon as you quote one of his claims for which
non-animals are excluded, and specify why you think his claims exclude
non-animals. Good luck with that.
One might suspect you won't because you can't.
And now you will resort to "I know you are but what am I?".
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 06:15:27 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
On 1/27/23 9:30 PM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:41:45 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
On 1/27/23 8:51 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 06:15:59 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/23 12:34 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 06:17:39 -0800, John HarshmanYes, though there may be some confusion here about what "plant" means. >>>>>
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/20/23 10:03 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Well, of course no plant phyla are known, in fact no life on land at >>>>>>>> all.
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life. >>>>>>>>>>>> More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>>
to zero.
Do you have any reason to doubt there existed Cambrian water plants? >>>>>>
Let's avoid additional obfuscating noise. In this context, I use
"plant" to refer to multicellular eukaryotes which have chloroplasts >>>>> and cell walls. Single-celled eukaryotes aren't plants the same way >>>>> single-celled metazoa aren't animals; by definition. This may not be >>>>> a standard definition, but it's close enough for this topic.
It's not a standard definition and it definitely isn't close enough for >>>> this topic.
Once again, you criticize what I provide without 1. citing an
alternative of your own, or 2. identifying the basis of your
criticism. Why is that?
And to be explicitly clear, I use "non-animal" to mean all organisms >>>>> not animals, which includes plants but isn't limited to them.
That, at least, has always been clear.
Mirabile dictu.
And as usual, you don't identify your reason to doubt there existed
Cambrian water plants. So much for your commitment to "correction".
The reason is simple: all modern water plants are angiosperms, and
angiosperms did not evolve before the Jurassic at the earliest. It's
conceivable there were non-angiosperm water plants once, but I don't
know of any fossils, so there seems no reason to think they existed.
Note again that I am using the standard definition of "plant", which you >>>> apparently were not. None of this is relevant, in any case, to the
Cambrian explosion.
Hard to note what you don't provide.
It's a clade, Embryophyta, consisting of mosses, liverworts, horsetails, >>>>>> ferns, and seed plants. Algae are not plants. Green algae are closely >>>>>> related to plants, but they aren't plants. Brown algae, red algae, etc. >>>>>> are not even that closely related to plants.
Do you presume eukaryote plants and animals have no common ancestor? >>>>>>Of course not. Why would you raise such a silly notion?
Since you asked, because you, John Harshman, continue to troll your
silly notions; 1. the Cambrian Explosion is "exclusively about
animals", and 2. the existence of Cambrian non-animals doesn't inform >>>>> R.Dean's claims. You're welcome.
I don't see how the idea that plants and animals have no common ancestor >>>> relates in any way to either 1 or 2. And of course both 1 and 2 are
true. Again, see Erwin & Valentine.
Of course you don't, and of course you don't say why. You don't even
quote your source. If only I hadn't sold my copy to finance my
vacation.
If by "cited" you mean some authoritative publication, neither did you.
If you mean an explanation of the meaning of the term, I did that in the
previous post. You are using an old meaning that makes a polyphyletic
group, and these days that isn't considered a good thing.
You regularly refer to Erwin and Valentine, a very large and largely inaccessible tome, but you do not *quote* from it nor identify a
passage from it. This renders useless your references to it.
Since you continue to criticize my expressed meaning of "plant", the
burden is on you to cite a meaning you prefer, and explain why you
prefer it. And you *still* haven't done so. Why is that?
Fungi are more difficult to identify. But the claims are purely >>>>>>>> about animals.
Cambrian fossils of non-animals:
<https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2009/08/09/middle-cambrian-stromatolites-high-in-the-canadian-rockies/>
What is the point here? Yes, there are non-animal fossils in the
Cambrian. But that has nothing to do with Ron Dean's claims.
That you think the existence of Cambrian non-animals has nothing to do >>>>> with R.Dean's claims shows you don't understand R.Dean's claims.
In my opinion, you're the one who doesn't understand his claims. Of
course we can't ask him. But perhaps you could quote one of his claims >>>> for which non-animals are relevant.
Sure, just as soon as you quote one of his claims for which
non-animals are excluded, and specify why you think his claims exclude
non-animals. Good luck with that.
One might suspect you won't because you can't.
It is you, John Harshman, who repeatedly and without basis asserts the positive claim that R.Dean excludes non-animals. That puts the burden
on you, John Harshman, to back up your claim. What you do above is to
shift your burden onto me, a classic troll tactic.
And now you will resort to "I know you are but what am I?".
Aping PeeWee Peter is a poor strategy. Shall I resort to calling you
PeeWee Harshman?
It's odd that you can't read. Or is it that you are blinded by rage?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:02:30 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
It's odd that you can't read. Or is it that you are blinded by rage?
Sez the willfully stupid troll who won't back up his claims.
On 1/28/23 8:30 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:02:30 -0800, John HarshmanI note that you won't back up any of your claims, and that I have backed
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
It's odd that you can't read. Or is it that you are blinded by rage?
Sez the willfully stupid troll who won't back up his claims.
up several claims in the bits you have excised here.
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared
during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:56:43 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 8:30 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:02:30 -0800, John HarshmanI note that you won't back up any of your claims, and that I have backed
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
It's odd that you can't read. Or is it that you are blinded by rage?
Sez the willfully stupid troll who won't back up his claims.
up several claims in the bits you have excised here.
Cite what you think are my claims that I have not backed up.
Cite what you think are your claims that are relevant to the topic.
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on
how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is
known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>> to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>> to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
On 1/28/23 4:06 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. Mistook the chain of custody.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>>> to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
On 1/28/23 9:13 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:56:43 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 8:30 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:02:30 -0800, John HarshmanI note that you won't back up any of your claims, and that I have backed >>> up several claims in the bits you have excised here.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
It's odd that you can't read. Or is it that you are blinded by rage?
Sez the willfully stupid troll who won't back up his claims.
Cite what you think are my claims that I have not backed up.
Mostly your idea that non-animal phyla are relevant to what Ron Dean is >talking about. Secondarily, your idea of what "plant" means.
The Cambrian Explosion can be said to be "exclusively about animals",
in the sense that Cambrian fossils record unique changes to animal
organisms in a uniquely short period of time. There also exist
Cambrian non-animal fossils, but they don't show the kinds or degrees
of changes the animals fossils do.
One of R.Dean's claims throughout his posts consistently has been that
the fossil record is evidence of abrupt yet fully-formed changes to
living organisms, and this is contrary to ToE's prediction of gradual
and incremental changes. R.Dean mentions the Cambrian Explosion and >Punctuated Equilibrium and Homeobox genes to illustrate his claim.
This topic was about R.Dean's claim. That you *still* ignore what
this topic was about disqualifies your posts as responses. Your only >substantive objections were about the taxonomy and phylogeny of
Cambrian animal fossils, which don't inform R.Dean's claim.
OTOH Mark Isaak's challenge to R.Dean does inform R.Dean's claim. >Unfortunately, your posts derailed that discussion. Now it will be
many months if ever before R.Dean responds to Mark Isaak's challenge.
I suppose some trolls would be proud of that. *************************************
Cite what you think are your claims that are relevant to the topic.
My claim that the Cambrian explosion is only about animals. My claim
that the list of phyla in the Wikipedia "kingdom" article is a bad and >outdated one. My claim that "plant" doesn't include algae, though that
third one isn't very relevant.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 17:42:11 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 4:06 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. Mistook the chain of custody.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>>>> to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
In most cases, I would ignore this event as a plausible and honest
error. But since you baselessly, falsely, hypocritically, and
repeatedly accused me of failing to read, I have no motivation not to highlight the unintended self-parody of your "mistake".
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:16:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:13 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:56:43 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 8:30 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:02:30 -0800, John HarshmanI note that you won't back up any of your claims, and that I have backed >>>> up several claims in the bits you have excised here.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
It's odd that you can't read. Or is it that you are blinded by rage? >>>>>
Sez the willfully stupid troll who won't back up his claims.
Cite what you think are my claims that I have not backed up.
Mostly your idea that non-animal phyla are relevant to what Ron Dean is
talking about. Secondarily, your idea of what "plant" means.
Let's see if you stick to just those two.
You didn't reply to the following. Based on your comments above, you
didn't even read it.
**************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A riposte of fine-tuning
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 03:21:23 -0500
Message-ID: <iev6th5ng42cqcpqvr4575t1almtgjfvti@4ax.com>
The Cambrian Explosion can be said to be "exclusively about animals",*************************************
in the sense that Cambrian fossils record unique changes to animal
organisms in a uniquely short period of time. There also exist
Cambrian non-animal fossils, but they don't show the kinds or degrees
of changes the animals fossils do.
One of R.Dean's claims throughout his posts consistently has been that
the fossil record is evidence of abrupt yet fully-formed changes to
living organisms, and this is contrary to ToE's prediction of gradual
and incremental changes. R.Dean mentions the Cambrian Explosion and
Punctuated Equilibrium and Homeobox genes to illustrate his claim.
This topic was about R.Dean's claim. That you *still* ignore what
this topic was about disqualifies your posts as responses. Your only
substantive objections were about the taxonomy and phylogeny of
Cambrian animal fossils, which don't inform R.Dean's claim.
OTOH Mark Isaak's challenge to R.Dean does inform R.Dean's claim.
Unfortunately, your posts derailed that discussion. Now it will be
many months if ever before R.Dean responds to Mark Isaak's challenge.
I suppose some trolls would be proud of that.
The above refutes your claim that I "won't back up my claims". That
you disagree with the above doesn't alter that fact.
Cite what you think are your claims that are relevant to the topic.
My claim that the Cambrian explosion is only about animals. My claim
that the list of phyla in the Wikipedia "kingdom" article is a bad and
outdated one. My claim that "plant" doesn't include algae, though that
third one isn't very relevant.
The above is a tacit admission that all of your obfuscating noise and ad-hominens and personal attacks and mindless made-up crap and
outright lies about me are irrelevant to the topic. Perhaps now,
after all these years, you will finally stop posting such willfully
stupid irrelevancies.
WRT your specified claims above, they are relevant to the topic only
if they inform R.Dean's claim that the fossil record contradicts ToE.
Since you disagree that is the topic, you *still* haven't shown that
your claims are relevant to that topic. Perhaps now, if you have
stopped posting your irrelevancies, you will finally find the time to
do so.
On 1/28/23 8:52 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 17:42:11 -0800, John HarshmanAre you that determined to become the new N****s?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 4:06 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John HarshmanSorry. Mistook the chain of custody.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
In most cases, I would ignore this event as a plausible and honest
error. But since you baselessly, falsely, hypocritically, and
repeatedly accused me of failing to read, I have no motivation not to
highlight the unintended self-parody of your "mistake".
Seriously, this is getting dangerously into Peter N****s territory. >Paranoia, check. Obscure statements followed by declarations of triumph, >check. Next you'll be making lists.
On 1/28/23 8:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:16:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:13 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:56:43 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 8:30 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 08:02:30 -0800, John HarshmanI note that you won't back up any of your claims, and that I have backed >>>>> up several claims in the bits you have excised here.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> continued to troll:
It's odd that you can't read. Or is it that you are blinded by rage? >>>>>>
Sez the willfully stupid troll who won't back up his claims.
Cite what you think are my claims that I have not backed up.
Mostly your idea that non-animal phyla are relevant to what Ron Dean is
talking about. Secondarily, your idea of what "plant" means.
Let's see if you stick to just those two.
You didn't reply to the following. Based on your comments above, you
didn't even read it.
**************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A riposte of fine-tuning
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 03:21:23 -0500
Message-ID: <iev6th5ng42cqcpqvr4575t1almtgjfvti@4ax.com>
The Cambrian Explosion can be said to be "exclusively about animals",*************************************
in the sense that Cambrian fossils record unique changes to animal
organisms in a uniquely short period of time. There also exist
Cambrian non-animal fossils, but they don't show the kinds or degrees
of changes the animals fossils do.
One of R.Dean's claims throughout his posts consistently has been that
the fossil record is evidence of abrupt yet fully-formed changes to
living organisms, and this is contrary to ToE's prediction of gradual
and incremental changes. R.Dean mentions the Cambrian Explosion and
Punctuated Equilibrium and Homeobox genes to illustrate his claim.
This topic was about R.Dean's claim. That you *still* ignore what
this topic was about disqualifies your posts as responses. Your only
substantive objections were about the taxonomy and phylogeny of
Cambrian animal fossils, which don't inform R.Dean's claim.
OTOH Mark Isaak's challenge to R.Dean does inform R.Dean's claim.
Unfortunately, your posts derailed that discussion. Now it will be
many months if ever before R.Dean responds to Mark Isaak's challenge.
I suppose some trolls would be proud of that.
The above refutes your claim that I "won't back up my claims". That
you disagree with the above doesn't alter that fact.
???
Cite what you think are your claims that are relevant to the topic.
My claim that the Cambrian explosion is only about animals. My claim
that the list of phyla in the Wikipedia "kingdom" article is a bad and
outdated one. My claim that "plant" doesn't include algae, though that
third one isn't very relevant.
The above is a tacit admission that all of your obfuscating noise and
ad-hominens and personal attacks and mindless made-up crap and
outright lies about me are irrelevant to the topic. Perhaps now,
after all these years, you will finally stop posting such willfully
stupid irrelevancies.
WRT your specified claims above, they are relevant to the topic only
if they inform R.Dean's claim that the fossil record contradicts ToE.
Since you disagree that is the topic, you *still* haven't shown that
your claims are relevant to that topic. Perhaps now, if you have
stopped posting your irrelevancies, you will finally find the time to
do so.
Seriously, this is getting dangerously into Peter N****s territory. >Paranoia, check. Obscure statements followed by declarations of triumph, >check. Next you'll be making lists.
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this that is
Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and Mark is the
first person in this chain to introduce non-animal phyla. But why?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in >>>>>>> current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of
intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number >>>>>>> will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders >>>>>>> instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla
appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up
first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>> to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
On 1/28/23 4:06 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran >>>>>>>>> Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil >>>>>>>> appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever
(rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>>> to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
Sorry, I thought your question was addressed to John.
Short answer: Not any more, with Ron gone and jillery generating
excessive conflict. (I would have posted more in the recent past, but
was unable to for several days.)
I think John made an excellent point that the timing of origin of phyla
is an artifact of classification much more than of evolution. Ron is
not around anymore to discuss how his ideas apply to non-animal life,
but (as I just said in another post), if he were consistent, other
kingdoms should be relevant too.
One more question: What animal phyla are known from the Precambrian?
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what we're
supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this that is
Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and Mark is the
first person in this chain to introduce non-animal phyla. But why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of complex
life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it were
consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides animals. He
fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster child, but in
fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 08:11:35 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/28/23 4:06 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the
exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close >>>>>> to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
Sorry, I thought your question was addressed to John.
I replied to your post. If my question was addressed to someone else,
I would have asked them in reply to their posts.
Short answer: Not any more, with Ron gone and jillery generating
excessive conflict. (I would have posted more in the recent past, but
was unable to for several days.)
??? jillery is the one who has defended your challenge above, while
Harshman is the one who has repeatedly claimed without basis that your challenge isn't relevant. So how do you figure I am responsible for generating excessive conflict? Why do you ignore Harshman's repeated
and obvious personal attacks?
I think John made an excellent point that the timing of origin of phyla
is an artifact of classification much more than of evolution. Ron is
not around anymore to discuss how his ideas apply to non-animal life,
but (as I just said in another post), if he were consistent, other
kingdoms should be relevant too.
Whether or not R.Dean is still around, your challenge remains valid to
PRATTs from Creationists and cdesign proponentsists. Several others
who share R.Dean's presumptions post more often than he does.
All life, not just animal life, which lived during the Cambrian,
almost certainly originated from a common ancestor. Creationist
PRATTs presume different phyla had independent origins. They claim
the *lack* of data from the fossil record is positive evidence for independent origins. That's why my point, that all eukaryotes, animal
and non-animal, share similar complex molecular chemistry, is an
excellent point that refutes their presumptions.
OTOH John Harshman handwaved that point away, repeating his baseless
claim that non-animals are an irrelevant digression.
On 1/29/23 9:29 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 08:11:35 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/28/23 4:06 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the >>>>>>>>>>> basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record >>>>>>>> but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all >>>>>>>> just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example.
And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
Sorry, I thought your question was addressed to John.
I replied to your post. If my question was addressed to someone else,
I would have asked them in reply to their posts.
I skip quickly over the initial parts of posts, so I often miss seeing
who the post is in reply to. When the issue is the issues, the authors
are not terribly relevant.
Short answer: Not any more, with Ron gone and jillery generating
excessive conflict. (I would have posted more in the recent past, but
was unable to for several days.)
??? jillery is the one who has defended your challenge above, while
Harshman is the one who has repeatedly claimed without basis that your
challenge isn't relevant. So how do you figure I am responsible for
generating excessive conflict? Why do you ignore Harshman's repeated
and obvious personal attacks?
It's not a matter of whether one is challenging or defending me, but
how. I would much rather see one well-reasoned post that I disagree
with than a dozen which vehemently attack, with little or no supported >argument about the actual issues, the people who have disagreed with me.
I think John made an excellent point that the timing of origin of phyla
is an artifact of classification much more than of evolution. Ron is
not around anymore to discuss how his ideas apply to non-animal life,
but (as I just said in another post), if he were consistent, other
kingdoms should be relevant too.
Whether or not R.Dean is still around, your challenge remains valid to
PRATTs from Creationists and cdesign proponentsists. Several others
who share R.Dean's presumptions post more often than he does.
All life, not just animal life, which lived during the Cambrian,
almost certainly originated from a common ancestor. Creationist
PRATTs presume different phyla had independent origins. They claim
the *lack* of data from the fossil record is positive evidence for
independent origins. That's why my point, that all eukaryotes, animal
and non-animal, share similar complex molecular chemistry, is an
excellent point that refutes their presumptions.
OTOH John Harshman handwaved that point away, repeating his baseless
claim that non-animals are an irrelevant digression.
For some issues, non-animals *are* an irrelevant digression. John and I
may disagree about whether this is one such issue.
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this
that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and Mark
is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal phyla. But
why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of complex
life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it were
consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides animals. He
fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster child, but in
fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else. Whether he should have thought about it is another question, but clearly that
wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any radiation of plants
would have been much later, protists much earlier, and prokaryotes even earlier. Fungi have very little in the way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you point
out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades. Based on
modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as belonging to
their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known from Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may not count.
A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not part of the explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy.
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this information.
Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of phyla that don't
feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and gastrotrichs.
On 1/29/23 10:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this
that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and
Mark is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal
phyla. But why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of
complex life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it
were consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides
animals. He fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster
child, but in fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else. Whether
he should have thought about it is another question, but clearly that
wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any radiation of plants
would have been much later, protists much earlier, and prokaryotes
even earlier. Fungi have very little in the way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you
point out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades.
Based on modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as
belonging to their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known
from Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may not
count. A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not part
of the explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy.
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this
information. Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of phyla
that don't feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and
gastrotrichs.
Thank you. And if you come across a way for me to get a copy of Erwin & Valentine for less than $40, please let me know.
On 1/29/23 10:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Using VPN and checking uk sources, I found a used copy on ebay for ~$190. Pretty steep.
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else. Whether he should have thought about it is another question, but clearly that
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this
that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and Mark
is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal phyla. But
why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of complex
life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it were
consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides animals. He
fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster child, but in
fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any radiation of plants
would have been much later, protists much earlier, and prokaryotes even earlier. Fungi have very little in the way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you point out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades. Based on
modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as belonging to
their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known from Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may not count.
A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not part of the explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy.
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this information. Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of phyla that don'tThank you. And if you come across a way for me to get a copy of Erwin & Valentine for less than $40, please let me know.
feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and gastrotrichs.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:16:32 -0800, Mark Isaak ><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/29/23 9:29 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 08:11:35 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 1/28/23 4:06 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:19:57 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/28/23 9:05 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:03:38 -0800, Mark IsaakNo.
<specimen@curioustaxonomy.net> wrote:
On 1/20/23 9:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/20/23 7:55 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:And how many non-animal phyla are there, and how many of them show up >>>>>>>> first in the Cambrian? My impression is that the latter number is close
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/23 7:54 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
More homework for you: Find two numbers. First, how many phyla exist in[...]In my opinion the appearance of the
huge massive numbers of phyla, classes, orders etc that appeared >>>>>>>>>>>> during,
what is called the, "Cambrian Explosion", and the absence of >>>>>>>>>>>> intermediates
or links back to some common ancestors in the precambrian or Edicaran
Era is a serious confrontation of evolution. This is failure in the
basis and
foundation of the entire evolutionary history of life.
current classification? Second, how many phyla make their first fossil
appearance in the Cambrian?
I don't know the numbers myself, but my guess is that the second number
will be less than half of the first. And if you count classes or orders
instead of phyla, the ratio will drop even further.
I actually think the number is closer to 80-90% of animal phyla >>>>>>>>>> appearing first in the Cambrian
No, it's a bit less than 2/3. There are around 30 phyla, depending on >>>>>>>>> how you count. Around 10 of them have no fossil record whatsoever >>>>>>>>> (rotifers, for example), and another few have a little bit of a record
but not in the Cambrian (nematodes, for example). Of course that's all
just taphonomic artifact. Every single readily preservable phylum is >>>>>>>>> known from the Cambrian. It used to be that bryozoans were the >>>>>>>>> exception, but there's a recently discovered Cambrian example. >>>>>>>>
to zero.
Do you have any interest in pursuing this?
Are "John Harshman" and "Mark Isaak" sock puppets? If not, perhaps
you will allow him to answer for himself.
Sorry, I thought your question was addressed to John.
I replied to your post. If my question was addressed to someone else,
I would have asked them in reply to their posts.
I skip quickly over the initial parts of posts, so I often miss seeing
who the post is in reply to. When the issue is the issues, the authors >>are not terribly relevant.
Short answer: Not any more, with Ron gone and jillery generating
excessive conflict. (I would have posted more in the recent past, but >>>> was unable to for several days.)
??? jillery is the one who has defended your challenge above, while
Harshman is the one who has repeatedly claimed without basis that your
challenge isn't relevant. So how do you figure I am responsible for
generating excessive conflict? Why do you ignore Harshman's repeated
and obvious personal attacks?
It's not a matter of whether one is challenging or defending me, but
how. I would much rather see one well-reasoned post that I disagree
with than a dozen which vehemently attack, with little or no supported >>argument about the actual issues, the people who have disagreed with me.
If you really believe your comments above, they would disqualify
Harshman right from jump, as his posts in this thread are filled with >vehement attacks, and almost no supporting evidence for his claims or
against mine and yours. There is utterly no way you could have read
his posts closely enough to see any reasoning and not see his vehement >attacks. The only way to make sense of your conclusion is that, by
skipping over the authors, you have confused his posts with mine.
I think John made an excellent point that the timing of origin of phyla >>>> is an artifact of classification much more than of evolution. Ron is
not around anymore to discuss how his ideas apply to non-animal life,
but (as I just said in another post), if he were consistent, other
kingdoms should be relevant too.
Whether or not R.Dean is still around, your challenge remains valid to
PRATTs from Creationists and cdesign proponentsists. Several others
who share R.Dean's presumptions post more often than he does.
All life, not just animal life, which lived during the Cambrian,
almost certainly originated from a common ancestor. Creationist
PRATTs presume different phyla had independent origins. They claim
the *lack* of data from the fossil record is positive evidence for
independent origins. That's why my point, that all eukaryotes, animal
and non-animal, share similar complex molecular chemistry, is an
excellent point that refutes their presumptions.
OTOH John Harshman handwaved that point away, repeating his baseless
claim that non-animals are an irrelevant digression.
For some issues, non-animals *are* an irrelevant digression. John and I >>may disagree about whether this is one such issue.
Other issues not related to R.Dean's claims don't inform whether
non-animals are a digression to his claims.
On 1/30/23 10:42 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/23 9:17 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/29/23 10:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:A library?
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of
this that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion,
and Mark is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal >>>>>> phyla. But why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of
complex life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it
were consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides
animals. He fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster
child, but in fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else.
Whether he should have thought about it is another question, but
clearly that wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any
radiation of plants would have been much later, protists much
earlier, and prokaryotes even earlier. Fungi have very little in the
way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you
point out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades.
Based on modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as
belonging to their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known
from Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may
not count. A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not
part of the explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy. >>>>
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this
information. Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of
phyla that don't feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and
gastrotrichs.
Thank you. And if you come across a way for me to get a copy of
Erwin & Valentine for less than $40, please let me know.
Actually, yes, that will work. (I thought I had checked earlier and
found none available, but checking again, there are copies I can get
through ILL.)
On 1/30/23 9:17 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/29/23 10:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:A library?
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this
that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and
Mark is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal
phyla. But why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of
complex life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it
were consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides
animals. He fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster
child, but in fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else. Whether
he should have thought about it is another question, but clearly that
wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any radiation of plants
would have been much later, protists much earlier, and prokaryotes
even earlier. Fungi have very little in the way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you
point out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades.
Based on modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as
belonging to their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known
from Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may
not count. A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not
part of the explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy.
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this
information. Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of phyla
that don't feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and
gastrotrichs.
Thank you. And if you come across a way for me to get a copy of Erwin
& Valentine for less than $40, please let me know.
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:20:09 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/29/23 10:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Using VPN and checking uk sources, I found a used copy on ebay for ~$190. Pretty steep.
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:Thank you. And if you come across a way for me to get a copy of Erwin &
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this
that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and Mark >>>>> is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal phyla. But >>>>> why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of complex >>>> life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it were
consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides animals. He
fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster child, but in
fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else. Whether he >>> should have thought about it is another question, but clearly that
wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any radiation of plants
would have been much later, protists much earlier, and prokaryotes even
earlier. Fungi have very little in the way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you point
out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades. Based on
modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as belonging to
their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known from >>> Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may not count. >>> A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not part of the
explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy.
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this information. >>> Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of phyla that don't
feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and gastrotrichs.
Valentine for less than $40, please let me know.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Libraries are probably a better bet. (And no, I'm not going to sell my copy.)
On 1/30/23 11:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:20:09 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/29/23 10:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Using VPN and checking uk sources, I found a used copy on ebay for ~$190. Pretty steep.
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:Thank you. And if you come across a way for me to get a copy of Erwin &
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this >>>>> that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and Mark >>>>> is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal phyla. But >>>>> why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of complex >>>> life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it were
consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides animals. He
fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster child, but in
fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else. Whether he >>> should have thought about it is another question, but clearly that
wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any radiation of plants
would have been much later, protists much earlier, and prokaryotes even >>> earlier. Fungi have very little in the way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you point >>> out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades. Based on
modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as belonging to
their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known from >>> Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may not count. >>> A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not part of the
explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy.
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this information. >>> Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of phyla that don't
feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and gastrotrichs.
Valentine for less than $40, please let me know.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Libraries are probably a better bet. (And no, I'm not going to sell my copy.)
Amazon has a copy for $987! And it's used, "acceptable". Perhaps someone should consider reprinting.
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 1/30/23 11:01 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 9:20:09 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:Amazon has a copy for $987! And it's used, "acceptable". Perhaps someone
On 1/29/23 10:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:Using VPN and checking uk sources, I found a used copy on ebay for ~$190. Pretty steep.
On 1/29/23 7:57 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:Thank you. And if you come across a way for me to get a copy of Erwin & >> >> Valentine for less than $40, please let me know.
On 1/28/23 1:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:I think Ron was talking about the origin of complex animal life
[...]No. It isn't relevant to the Cambrian explosion, and that's what
we're supposedly talking about. You will note that the Part of this
that is Ron Dean's is entirely about the Cambrian explosion, and Mark >> >>>>> is the first person in this chain to introduce non-animal phyla. But >> >>>>> why?
My impression is that Ron Dean was talking about the origin of complex >> >>>> life, not just of animals. Certainly his argument, if it were
consistent, should apply to other forms of life besides animals. He
fixated on the Cambrian because it is a handy poster child, but in
fixing on it, he missed the bigger picture.
specifically and didn't so much as think about anything else. Whether he >> >>> should have thought about it is another question, but clearly that
wouldn't be in the context of the Cambrian. Any radiation of plants
would have been much later, protists much earlier, and prokaryotes even >> >>> earlier. Fungi have very little in the way of a fossil record.
What animal phyla are first known from the Cambrian? Well, as you point >> >>> out, "phylum" is an arbitrary name attached to some clades. Based on
modern phyla, and assuming that we count stem members as belonging to
their related phyla, I get:
Ctenophora
Annelida
Mollusca
Brachiopoda
Bryozoa
Phoronida
Sipuncula
Nematomorpha
Loricifera
Arthropoda
Priapulida
Tardigrada
Onychophora
Chaetognatha (?)
Echinodermata
Hemichordata (?)
Chordata
So that's 17 out of 30 or so phyla. Porifera and Cnidaria are found
before the Cambrian. Some of the phyla listed above are first known from >> >>> Cambrian 1 or Cambrian 2, before the explosion proper, so may not count. >> >>> A couple are known from later than Cambrian 3, again not part of the
explosion proper. And a couple of identifications are iffy.
Appendix 1 in Erwin & Valentine is a useful source for this information. >> >>> Note that the appendix doesn't mention a number of phyla that don't
feature in the fossil record, like kinorynchs and gastrotrichs.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Libraries are probably a better bet. (And no, I'm not going to sell my copy.)
should consider reprinting.
There's enough new material that a second edition would be welcome, but it's >probably unlikely. Jim Valentine is (mostly) retired and Doug Erwin is busy. It's
amazing considering the amount of work that book represents that it was written
in the first place. I'm unaware of the economics of reprinting, but I'd hope there are
enough potential buyers to make it feasible.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 308 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 92:54:44 |
| Calls: | 6,923 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,382 |
| Messages: | 5,434,104 |