Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".

[Ron Dean]

In 1966 a group of physicist and engineers made plans to hold a meeting
regarding mathematics and evolution. They invited well known biologist
from Harvard and MIT. The meeting became known as the "Mathematical
Challenge to Neo-Darwinism. The engineers asked their routine question
"does it work" a question that needed to be addressed. I searched the
net for some documentations, but I've had little luck.

First Page About the Speakers Student Contest Information
Sign Up for Student Contest Upload Files Wistar Symposium of 1966

THE ORIGINAL WISTAR SYMPOSIUM IN 1966

In 1966 a group of mathematicians and intellectuals met for a series of
speeches known collectively as “Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.” As Casey Luskin described
it, “One of the best mathematical forays into evolution was the 1966
Wistar Symposium, held in Philadelphia, where mathematicians and other
scientists from related fields congregated to assess whether
Neo-Darwinism is mathematically feasible. The conference was chaired by
Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar.” - EvolutionNews.org, July 6, 2006.

Peter Medawar said, "[T]he immediate cause of this conference is a
pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be
thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking
world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. ... There are objections made
by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is
missing ... These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very
widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I
think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this
conference is evidence that we are not making light of them." - Sir
Peter Medawar, "Remarks by the Chairman," Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1966,
No. 5, pg. xi.

Murray Eden, Ph.D. in Chemistry, said, "[A]n opposite way to look at the
genotype is as a generative algorithm and not as a blue-print; a sort of
carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living
organism of the right kind if the environment in which it develops is a
proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be written in
some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with
the alphabet of this language, but it is a long step from the alphabet
to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to have rules,
and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages.
No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the
symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost
invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I
would conjecture that what one might call 'genetic grammaticality' has a
deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection
pressure acting on random variation." - Murray Eden, "Inadequacies as a
Scientific Theory," Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 11.

Mathematician Stanislaw Ulam said, "[I]t seems to require many
thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the
easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least,
that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should
it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised
to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of
such a chain seem to be practically non-existent." - Stanislaw M. Ulam,
"How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution,"
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of
Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 21.
l
French mathematician and Doctor of Medicine Marcel Schutzenberger
said,"We do not know any general principle which would explain how to
match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are
supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart
from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting
programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their
experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some
built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus, to conclude, we
believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of
evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot
be bridged within the current conception of biology." - Marcel
Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and Neo-Darwinian Theory," Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar
Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 75.
http://www.3dmisc.com/Science2016/originalsymposium.htm

How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This
symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then. However, I
know of several challenges that so far as I know have not been answered.
The questions are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50%
left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected
the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected? I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or is
it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just as
well?

Of course, the chain of amino acids express precisely the order or
linage that form proteins and the way they are folded. This only pushes
the problem back. This raises the question of chance. There are 300-440
average numbers of amino acids that spell out the protein. What's the
chance that unguided and random processes would have hit upon the right
sequence in the linkage of acids. So, a chain of just 150, is worked
out there is 1 chance out of 10^164.
https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance

In a universe where blind, unguided, aimless random the odds are very
long. No one would bet his life on such long odds? And maybe some would.

In spite of these long odds, there are many different proteins in a
living organism. So, this is where instructions has to play fundamental
role. This is where DNA comes is which is "know how", instructions
information. In the real world when ever you trace this information back
to it's source, It always goes back to an engineer or other intelligence.

[Ron Dean]

Post by Ron Dean
In 1966 a group of physicist and engineers made plans to hold a meeting
regarding mathematics and evolution. They invited well known biologist
from Harvard and MIT. The meeting became known as the "Mathematical
Challenge to Neo-Darwinism. The engineers asked their  routine question
"does it work" a question that needed to be addressed. I searched the
net for some documentations, but I've had little luck.
First Page     About the Speakers     Student Contest Information
Sign Up for Student Contest     Upload Files     Wistar Symposium of 1966
THE ORIGINAL WISTAR SYMPOSIUM IN 1966
In 1966 a group of mathematicians and intellectuals met for a series of
speeches known collectively as “Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.” As Casey Luskin described
it, “One of the best mathematical forays into evolution was the 1966
Wistar Symposium, held in Philadelphia, where mathematicians and other
scientists from related fields congregated to assess whether
Neo-Darwinism is mathematically feasible. The conference was chaired by
Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar.” - EvolutionNews.org, July 6, 2006.
Peter Medawar said, "[T]he immediate cause of this conference is a
pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be
thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking
world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. ... There are objections made
by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is
missing ... These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very
widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I
think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this
conference is evidence that we are not making light of them." - Sir
Peter Medawar, "Remarks by the Chairman," Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1966,
No. 5, pg. xi.
Murray Eden, Ph.D. in Chemistry, said, "[A]n opposite way to look at the
genotype is as a generative algorithm and not as a blue-print; a sort of
carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living
organism of the right kind if the environment in which it develops is a
proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be written in
some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with
the alphabet of this language, but it is a long step from the alphabet
to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to have rules,
and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages.
No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the
symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost
invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I
would conjecture that what one might call 'genetic grammaticality' has a
deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection
pressure acting on random variation." - Murray Eden, "Inadequacies as a
Scientific Theory," Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 11.
Mathematician Stanislaw Ulam said, "[I]t seems to require many
thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the
easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least,
that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should
it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised
to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of
such a chain seem to be practically non-existent." - Stanislaw M. Ulam,
"How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution,"
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of
Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 21.
l
French mathematician and Doctor of Medicine Marcel Schutzenberger
said,"We do not know any general principle which would explain how to
match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are
supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart
from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting
programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their
experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some
built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus, to conclude, we
believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of
evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot
be bridged within the current conception of biology." - Marcel
Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and Neo-Darwinian Theory," Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar
Institute Press, 1966, No. 5, pg. 75.
http://www.3dmisc.com/Science2016/originalsymposium.htm
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This
symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then. However, I
know of several challenges that so far as I know have not been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50%
left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected
the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or is
it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just as
well?
Of course, the chain of amino acids express precisely the order or
linage  that form proteins and the way they are folded. This only pushes
the problem back. This raises the question of chance. There are 300-440
average numbers of amino acids that spell out the protein. What's the
chance that unguided and random processes would have hit upon the right
sequence in the linkage of acids. So, a chain of  just 150, is worked
out there is 1 chance out of 10^164.
https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance
In a universe where blind, unguided, aimless random the odds are very
long. No one would bet his life on such long odds? And maybe some would.
In spite of these long odds, there are many different proteins in a
living organism. So, this is where instructions has to play fundamental
role. This is where DNA comes is which is "know how", instructions
information. In the real world when ever you trace this information back
to it's source, It always goes back to an engineer or other intelligence.

I just thought of another enigma. There was another explosion during the
Cambrian explosion of numerous complex organisms, that is an explosion
of genetic instructions information that was absolutely required at the
time. If the Cambrian explosion was a mystery the explosion of
instructive information is a greater problem where there is only
unguided chance.

[Ernest Major]

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This
symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441

The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern mathematical
anti-evolutionism."

Post by Ron Dean
However, I
know of several challenges that so far as I know have not been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50%
left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected
the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or is
it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just as
well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur in
living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino acids
existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic earth. I
presume that you haven't done so.

I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine. Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this
originated in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally
transferred into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid,
selenocysteine, is also incorporated into proteins from the genetic code
using a kludge. This is also not present in all organisms.

However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.

Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.

They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round this
either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it gets
near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.

There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late addition
to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous performed
using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If this is
correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be added to
the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.

People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility. The availability constraint biases the genetic
code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the addition
of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the functional
range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs non-polar, basic
vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not already found in the
prior set.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441

After I check the local library I'll look into this.

Post by Ernest Major
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern mathematical
anti-evolutionism."

Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not
the math then what?
I don't think it's fair to call someone an anti-evolutionist. This is a
disparagement meant to discredit an opposition without a hearing. It's
like a court where the prosecutor presents his case, but a defense is
not allowed. But a fair decision is expected.

But you cannot challenge the mathematics. What is the chance of a single
functional protein can form through unguided, random and aimless
processes? For example, in the pre-biotic earth the first protein of say
150 (the average number amino acids in a protein is 500-400) amino acids
in a specific order is needed. Even in an ocean of amino acids and 4.5
billion years. It's said it would be less chance than the number atoms
in the known universe. As you know in the pre-biotic universe there is
no natural selection.
"......we can calculate the probability of building our very modest
protein."

protein to be 1 in
10^164.

Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of proteins".

https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance

I think this is where intelligence comes into play, there is no more
simpler explanation!
Where is Ocham's razor?

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature,
50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked
just as well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur in
living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino acids
existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic earth. I
presume that you haven't done so.

I question the source. Who can know how many amino acids were present at
that time. Amino acids have been found in space rocks, meteors. The
Urey-Miller experment, in conditions representing early earth atmosphere
and electric discharges representing lightning produced several amino acids.
And later duplication of the Miller excrement produces even more than
Millers did.
So, who knows how many amino acids existed on the pre-biotic earth.

Post by Ernest Major
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine. Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this
originated in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally
transferred into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid,
selenocysteine, is also incorporated into proteins from the genetic code
using a kludge. This is also not present in all organisms.

I did not address anything except the common used 20 or 22 amino acids.
Technically, you are right, I can accept that, but it does not undermine
the concept I offered.

Post by Ernest Major
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round this
either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it gets
near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late addition
to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous performed
using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If this is
correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be added to
the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility.

How far back would you have to go back for this? Certainly, at the time
of the Cambrian explosion the genetic code as we know it today was
present then. And as I mentioned at the time of the Cambrian explosion
there had to be an explosion of specific genetic information (instructions).
The origin of which is inexplicable, except through intelligence. The
truth is, information is degraded by errors, mistakes and copying.

The availability constraint biases the genetic

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

This is supposition and hypothesis.

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

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

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

[jillery]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441

After I check the local library I'll look into this.

Post by Ernest Major
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern mathematical
anti-evolutionism."

Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not
the math then what?
I don't think it's fair to call someone an anti-evolutionist. This is a
disparagement meant to discredit an opposition without a hearing. It's
like a court where the prosecutor presents his case, but a defense is
not allowed. But a fair decision is expected.

Since you mention it, I would say baselessly calling someone an
anti-evolutionist is as fair as baselessly calling someone an atheist.
I bet even you recall who does that, and so diminishes its impact.

Post by Ron Dean
But you cannot challenge the mathematics. What is the chance of a single
functional protein can form through unguided, random and aimless
processes? For example, in the pre-biotic earth the first protein of say
150 (the average number amino acids in a protein is 500-400) amino acids
in a specific order is needed. Even in an ocean of amino acids and 4.5
billion years. It's said it would be less chance than the number atoms
in the known universe. As you know in the pre-biotic universe there is
no natural selection.
"......we can calculate the probability of building our very modest
protein."
http://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaAfunctional protein to be 1 in
10^164.
Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of proteins".
https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance

If by "challenge the mathematics" you mean by analogy whether 2+2=4,
you would be right. But that's not what is being challenged. Instead,
the challenge is whether 2+2=4 is even relevant to the question being
raised.

In fact, the argument you present above is a PRATT. Google "tornado
in a junkyard". I know you know amino acids and proteins
self-assemble. I know you know self-replicating molecules exist. Why
continue to pretend that anybody identified the one and only very
first amino acid sequence?

Post by Ron Dean
I think this is where intelligence comes into play, there is no more
simpler explanation!
Where is Ocham's razor?

Indeed where? Since you assert such skepticism about a string of
amino acids self-assembling, not sure how you continue to accept
without question the existence of a purposeful designer capable of
doing what you claim it did.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature,
50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked
just as well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur in
living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino acids
existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic earth. I
presume that you haven't done so.

I question the source. Who can know how many amino acids were present at
that time. Amino acids have been found in space rocks, meteors. The
Urey-Miller experment, in conditions representing early earth atmosphere
and electric discharges representing lightning produced several amino acids.
And later duplication of the Miller excrement produces even more than
Millers did.
So, who knows how many amino acids existed on the pre-biotic earth.

Since you asked, apparently not you, which verifies Ernest Major's
presumption expressed above.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine. Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this
originated in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally
transferred into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid,
selenocysteine, is also incorporated into proteins from the genetic code
using a kludge. This is also not present in all organisms.

I did not address anything except the common used 20 or 22 amino acids.
Technically, you are right, I can accept that, but it does not undermine
the concept I offered.

Post by Ernest Major
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round this
either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it gets
near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late addition
to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous performed
using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If this is
correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be added to
the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility.

How far back would you have to go back for this? Certainly, at the time
of the Cambrian explosion the genetic code as we know it today was
present then. And as I mentioned at the time of the Cambrian explosion
there had to be an explosion of specific genetic information (instructions).
The origin of which is inexplicable, except through intelligence. The
truth is, information is degraded by errors, mistakes and copying.

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

Post by Ron Dean

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

This is supposition and hypothesis.

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

Post by Ron Dean

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

We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several
proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects
them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
commitment to convention.

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

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

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

[Ernest Major]

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
So, who knows how many amino acids existed on the pre-biotic earth.

Since you asked, apparently not you, which verifies Ernest Major's
presumption expressed above.

If you look at his original post you'll discover that he was implicitly
claiming to know how many chemical species of amino acids existed on the
pre-biotic earth.

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441

After I check the local library I'll look into this.

Post by Ernest Major
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern mathematical
anti-evolutionism."

Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not
the math then what?
I don't think it's fair to call someone an anti-evolutionist. This is a
disparagement meant to discredit an opposition without a hearing. It's
like a court where the prosecutor presents his case, but a defense is
not allowed. But a fair decision is expected.

Since you mention it, I would say baselessly calling someone an
anti-evolutionist is as fair as baselessly calling someone an atheist.
I bet even you recall who does that, and so diminishes its impact.

Post by Ron Dean
But you cannot challenge the mathematics. What is the chance of a single
functional protein can form through unguided, random and aimless
processes? For example, in the pre-biotic earth the first protein of say
150 (the average number amino acids in a protein is 500-400) amino acids
in a specific order is needed. Even in an ocean of amino acids and 4.5
billion years. It's said it would be less chance than the number atoms
in the known universe. As you know in the pre-biotic universe there is
no natural selection.
"......we can calculate the probability of building our very modest
protein."
http://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaAfunctional protein to be 1 in
10^164.
Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of proteins".
https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance

If by "challenge the mathematics" you mean by analogy whether 2+2=4,
you would be right. But that's not what is being challenged. Instead,
the challenge is whether 2+2=4 is even relevant to the question being
raised.
In fact, the argument you present above is a PRATT. Google "tornado
in a junkyard". I know you know amino acids and proteins
self-assemble. I know you know self-replicating molecules exist. Why
continue to pretend that anybody identified the one and only very
first amino acid sequence?

Post by Ron Dean
I think this is where intelligence comes into play, there is no more
simpler explanation!
Where is Ocham's razor?

Indeed where? Since you assert such skepticism about a string of
amino acids self-assembling, not sure how you continue to accept
without question the existence of a purposeful designer capable of
doing what you claim it did.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature,
50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked
just as well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur in
living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino acids
existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic earth. I
presume that you haven't done so.

I question the source. Who can know how many amino acids were present at
that time. Amino acids have been found in space rocks, meteors. The
Urey-Miller experment, in conditions representing early earth atmosphere
and electric discharges representing lightning produced several amino acids.
And later duplication of the Miller excrement produces even more than
Millers did.
So, who knows how many amino acids existed on the pre-biotic earth.

Since you asked, apparently not you, which verifies Ernest Major's
presumption expressed above.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine. Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this
originated in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally
transferred into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid,
selenocysteine, is also incorporated into proteins from the genetic code
using a kludge. This is also not present in all organisms.

I did not address anything except the common used 20 or 22 amino acids.
Technically, you are right, I can accept that, but it does not undermine
the concept I offered.

Post by Ernest Major
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round this
either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it gets
near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late addition
to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous performed
using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If this is
correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be added to
the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility.

How far back would you have to go back for this? Certainly, at the time
of the Cambrian explosion the genetic code as we know it today was
present then. And as I mentioned at the time of the Cambrian explosion
there had to be an explosion of specific genetic information (instructions).
The origin of which is inexplicable, except through intelligence. The
truth is, information is degraded by errors, mistakes and copying.

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

No, it is not corrected through reproduction, but there are 6 known
proofreading and repair machines in DNA. DNA corrects itself, except
rarely an mutation is not detected or repaired and the mutation is
passed down to offsprings through reproduction.

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

This is supposition and hypothesis.

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

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

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several
proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects
them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
commitment to convention.

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

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

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

In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today. So, I've been
there, I could return without any problem if there was shown where ID
was wrong and evolution had the only explanation for what is observed.
It's my conclusion that evolution requires faith.

Evolution is more of a philosophy than science, since evidence is
interpretated to fit into the theory. But the exact same evidence can be
intrepretated to fit into the ID model which was done by a man
before Darwin was born, named William Paley. So, evolution is an
alternative explanation for all discovered evidence.

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

[LDagget]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean
How far back would you have to go back for this? Certainly, at the time
of the Cambrian explosion the genetic code as we know it today was
present then. And as I mentioned at the time of the Cambrian explosion
there had to be an explosion of specific genetic information
(instructions).
The origin of which is inexplicable, except through intelligence. The
truth is, information is degraded by errors, mistakes and copying.

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

No, it is not corrected through reproduction, but there are 6 known
proofreading and repair machines in DNA. DNA corrects itself, except
rarely an mutation is not detected or repaired and the mutation is
passed down to offsprings through reproduction.

DNA does not correct itself.
More clearly, DNA sequences do not repair themselves. The claim that
it does is grossly ignorant. There do exist DNA repair pathways.
Their biochemistry is rather well studied. It is clear that you have
not seriously studied DNA repair mechanisms but instead parrot back
things that you have not understood, but that you are convinced
create a problem for evolution.

In this, as in many other things, you are transparent. Despite you
failure to understand not only the facts involved, but also the
significant sciences --- in the case of DNA repair that would be
the biochemistry of nucleic acid polymers, enzymology in general,
and the enzymes of DNA repair in particular.

Why would someone with so little intellectual foundation on a topic
continue to make so many unfounded claims about it? One reason would
be that they want to press an agenda regardless of actual facts.

[jillery]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean

<snip uncommented text>

Post by Ron Dean

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

No, it is not corrected through reproduction,

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

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

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

This is supposition and hypothesis.

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

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

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

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several
proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects
them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
commitment to convention.

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

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

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

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

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

Post by Ron Dean

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

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

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

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean

<snip uncommented text>

Post by Ron Dean

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

No, it is not corrected through reproduction,

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

Yes, and I've recognized and pointed this out. There are countless
errors and mutations, caused by radiation, copy error, omissions, but
the overwhelming majority or proofread and repaired. But there are a few
mutations that the P&R machines does not detect. These mutations are
passed on
to offspring. Most hand me down mutations are said to be neutral, many
others determental, but a few are said to be beneficial. But these very
few (if any) beneficial mutations are actual known.
In bacteria that's mutated in test tubes generally are "designed" to
survive in the lab conditions,
but in the real world they do not fare well.

Post by jillery

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

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

This is supposition and hypothesis.

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

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

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

I don't always get around to every post addressed to me due to time, my
wife and family, my job, eating, sleeping and other pressing matters. I
do the best I can. I'm sorry, but TO has to take a back seat.
<
OK, in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, there were oceans where an
abundance of new, unknown complex organisms abruptly appeared
(geologically speaking) where prior to this, there were billions of
years where only single cell organisms were found in the strata. Not
only was this and explosion of complex organisms, this was accompanied
with an explosion of instructive information. The origin of which is
unknown.

However, the sudden appearance of a multitude of new organisms also
indicates the sudden appearance of multiple strands of new instructive
information, that was needed to express for each new complex organism.
This is evidence, the appearance of this instructive information can be
seen as evidence of the hand of an intelligence. There is no question
this is instructive information and if you trace instructions
(information) back to the source, our personal experience always leads
us back to an intelligence - a mind. And instructions or information
encoded in DNA is no exception.

One may theorize that 3 -4 or more amino acids can exist in the
prebiotic world and somehow build on up to the 22 that observed in most
modern life forms. OK, but I question there's any evidence indicating
any less then the same 22 amino acids were needed in the Cambrian fauna.
There may have been 4 or 7 or 10 or more amino acids in the prebiotic
world, but like letters in a word in a sentence they need a specific
order to have meaning. What is the chance that anino acids express
protein and then express the necessary protein folding? What chance is
there for a proteins to arise by chance in the prebiotic world? In the
prebiotic world is there natural selection?

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several
proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects
them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
commitment to convention.

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

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

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

As I pointed out before evolution is non-falsifiable. If a rabbit was
found in the Cambrian it would be ignored or explained away by the
argument that when phyla are found where they should not be, it's due to
plate tectonics, or some other natural geological forces causing younger
strata to be forced under older strata. It's also true that the earth's
strata layers were determine by observing the life forms found within.
The more primitive the living forms were the deeper they were placed in
the strata layers whether or not that's where they were found or not.
So, if a rabbit along with other mammals were found in the wrong place
it would be easy to place the strata where it should be.

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

That's your point that you're placing in Gould. I've read a considerable
amount of his books and papers, This does not come across as from Gould.

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

There is one case where there is the observed vs the unobserved. There
are situations where most new species are observed appearing abrupt in
the rocks, but their evolutionary path is unobserved. The many finely
graduate steps between species Darwin worried about are unobserved in
virtually all cases. It's faith that they existed. There is no known
case where a group from one family is observed that evolved into another
family. Where ever we observe a species within a family we do not
observe the chain leading to another entirely different species within
one family to species in another family. Yet we observe numerous so
called "living fossils" that appear identical or very close in
appearance to fossil remains of ancient ancestors of million or even
hundreds of millions of years ago. These "living fossil" we observe vs
the unobserved evolution of these living fossils.
Many appeared early in the history of life and remain very close in
appearance today. From what I seen this characteristic of the observed
vs the unobserved is rampant throughout the apologue of evolution.

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

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

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how baselessly biased it
is.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[El Kabong]

...

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

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

No, it is not corrected through reproduction,

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

Yes, and I've recognized and pointed this out. There are countless
errors and mutations, caused by radiation, copy error, omissions, but
the overwhelming majority or proofread and repaired. But there are a few
mutations that the P&R machines does not detect. These mutations are
passed on
to offspring.

No, those mutations are not passed on to offspring, for
reasons that have been explained to you several times.

The mutations that are repaired and corrected are ones
that happen in mitosis, the cell division process. But,
in multicellular organisms, these cells do not reproduce.
The cells that reproduce are gametes. They are formed in
the process of meosis, in which genetic variations and
mutations can be passed on. They are not "repaired" to
look like the parent genome, because they are supposed to
be different. The function of the whole process is to
produce variations in offspring because that drives the
whole process of adaptation and evolution.

Life has evolved the ability to evolve.

Do you have any idea why sexual reproduction is so
common?

Of course, you will ignore this and repeat your false
assertions over and over because you are incapable of
learning and adapting.

If you are resolutely determined to remain ignorant, you
will succeed.

<snip>

Post by Ron Dean
OK, in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, there were oceans where an
abundance of new, unknown complex organisms abruptly appeared
(geologically speaking) where prior to this, there were billions of
years where only single cell organisms were found in the strata.

No, there were multi-celled organisms long before the
Cambrian. They were soft-bodied and left very few
fossils, but there are some.

This has also been explained to you, and your ignorance
has prevailed over enlightenment yet again.

Post by Ron Dean
Not
only was this and explosion of complex organisms, this was accompanied
with an explosion of instructive information. The origin of which is
unknown.

You seem to think evolution and the geneneration of
genetic "information" are separate and unrelated
processes. They are not. The generation of genetic
"information" is the process of evolution itself. What
else do you think it is that evolves?

This has also been explained to you before. But again,
you will always favor the ignorance of IDism.

[Martin Harran]

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

[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.

What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

[…]

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

I love reading, especially Science Fiction books + movies. I've read:
The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
the God Delusion -Dawkins
The language of Life - Collins
and 2 or 3 others, 25+ years ago - the titles I do not recall, but one
was justifying faith in Christ another the history of Christianity. But
I've also read, The Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, Books both
positive and critical of the man. Also Mary Baker Eddy 's Christian
Healer. And I've been entertained a few times over the years by Mormon
missionaries. I'm not a regular Church attender, but I do go from time
to time. My wife is Methodist, so when I do go, it's to a Methodist
Church. But never their Sunday School. The United Methodist Church is a
liberal Denomination.

Do you ever attend any Church services?

Post by jillery
[…]

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:17:29 -0400

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
the God Delusion -Dawkins
The language of Life - Collins
and 2 or 3 others, 25+ years ago - the titles I do not recall, but one

[]
not a lot, and you need something more up-to-date -

Try this one: -
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Ladybird-Expert-Book/dp/0718186281

[Ron Dean]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
the God Delusion -Dawkins
The language of Life - Collins
and 2 or 3  others, 25+ years ago - the titles I do not recall, but one
was justifying faith in Christ another the history of Christianity. But
I've also read, The Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, Books both
positive and critical of the man. Also Mary Baker Eddy 's Christian
Healer. And I've been entertained a few times over the years by Mormon
missionaries. I'm not a regular Church attender, but I do go from time
to time.  My wife is Methodist, so when I do go, it's to a Methodist
Church. But never their Sunday School. The United Methodist Church is a
liberal Denomination.
Do you ever attend any Church services?

I do from time to tine, but not on a regular basis. When I do it's the
United Methodist Church.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
[…]

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:17:29 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
the God Delusion -Dawkins
The language of Life - Collins

Funny that just two weeks ago, you claimed to know little about
Collins other than a YouTube video which made you curious that he
didn't give up on evolution. When I recommended Collins's book 'The
Language of God', you gave no indication of having read any other book
by him.

Post by Ron Dean
and 2 or 3 others, 25+ years ago - the titles I do not recall, but one
was justifying faith in Christ another the history of Christianity. But
I've also read, The Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, Books both
positive and critical of the man. Also Mary Baker Eddy 's Christian
Healer. And I've been entertained a few times over the years by Mormon
missionaries. I'm not a regular Church attender, but I do go from time
to time. My wife is Methodist, so when I do go, it's to a Methodist
Church. But never their Sunday School. The United Methodist Church is a
liberal Denomination.
Do you ever attend any Church services?

Funny again how I have told you several times that I am a committed
and active Catholic.

I'm fast becoming convinced like others here that you are a troll or a
Loki. Of course, there is always the possibility that you are just
incapable of taking things on board. Whichever it is, trying to have a
rational discussion with you is clearly a waste of time.


[…]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
[…]

[Ron Dean]

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:17:29 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
the God Delusion -Dawkins
The language of Life - Collins

I forgot about Collins. I rather read selected chapters, since at the
time, I so little time.

Post by Martin Harran
Funny that just two weeks ago, you claimed to know little about
Collins other than a YouTube video which made you curious that he
didn't give up on evolution. When I recommended Collins's book 'The
Language of God', you gave no indication of having read any other book
by him.

Thank you for reminding me.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Ron Dean
and 2 or 3 others, 25+ years ago - the titles I do not recall, but one
was justifying faith in Christ another the history of Christianity. But
I've also read, The Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, Books both
positive and critical of the man. Also Mary Baker Eddy 's Christian
Healer. And I've been entertained a few times over the years by Mormon
missionaries. I'm not a regular Church attender, but I do go from time
to time. My wife is Methodist, so when I do go, it's to a Methodist
Church. But never their Sunday School. The United Methodist Church is a
liberal Denomination.
Do you ever attend any Church services?

Funny again how I have told you several times that I am a committed
and active Catholic.

I glad to hear it.

Post by Martin Harran
I'm fast becoming convinced like others here that you are a troll or a
Loki. Of course, there is always the possibility that you are just
incapable of taking things on board. Whichever it is, trying to have a
rational discussion with you is clearly a waste of time.

Then why bother?

Post by Martin Harran
[…]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
[…]

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject.

When someone points to your guru having eugenics based views you belittle
them by comparing them to Ron Dean and when presented with actual evidence
quoted directly from the source you avoid actually deep diving in and
instead tap dance with irrelevancies like the practice of FGM. So much for
understanding those various views that might go against your own
confirmation bias. But go on and lecture Ron Dean on your virtues.

Post by jillery
For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact';

So what of his discussion of yolking genes in the former versus his bugbear
Templeton in the latter then?

Post by jillery
Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?
[…]

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 03:10:42 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject.

When someone points to your guru having eugenics based views you belittle
them by comparing them to Ron Dean and when presented with actual evidence
quoted directly from the source you avoid actually deep diving in and
instead tap dance with irrelevancies like the practice of FGM. So much for
understanding those various views that might go against your own
confirmation bias. But go on and lecture Ron Dean on your virtues.

That uncontrollable itch playing up again?

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by jillery
For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact';

So what of his discussion of yolking genes in the former versus his bugbear
Templeton in the latter then?

As I've said before, Coyne, just like Dawkins, is an outstandingly
good writer when he sticks to *science*, the subject he knows well,
but a total prick when it comes to writing about religion. We
discussed his attack on Templeton some time ago:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/sHb33H-Yucw/m/NTuZvxrKBwAJ?hl=en

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by jillery
Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?
[?]

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 09:03:54 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 03:10:42 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject.

When someone points to your guru having eugenics based views you belittle
them by comparing them to Ron Dean and when presented with actual evidence
quoted directly from the source you avoid actually deep diving in and
instead tap dance with irrelevancies like the practice of FGM. So much for
understanding those various views that might go against your own
confirmation bias. But go on and lecture Ron Dean on your virtues.

That uncontrollable itch playing up again?

P.S. I forgot to ask, what was the name of that guy again, the one who
used to irritate people by dragging disagreement in a thread into
other unrelated threads?

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

Would you recomend a few? How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

Post by jillery
[…]

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:12:53 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

Would you recomend a few?

In terms of books by religious believers, I've already recommended
Francis Collins's 'The Language of God'.

Another good book is Ken Miller's 'Finding Darwin's God'. Miller is
one of the most high-profile debunkers of ID and played a key role in
the Dover case.

'Quantum Leap: How John Polkinghorne found God in science and
religion' by Dean Nelson and Karl Giberson

'Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man Explained' by Louis
Savary; this is not anti-ID as such but it is very strong on evolution
from a religious perspective. (BTW, don't go straight to the original
Teilhard book, his writing style is very difficult to comprehend,
easier to understand after reading Savary's book.)

Far too many books from non-religious believers to list but two of my
favourites are:

''Why Evolution is True' by Jerry Coyne, probably the best book I have
read on exacrly what its title says.

'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. A bit dated now and weak in
some areas like altruism but I have a soft spot for it as it was the
second-ever book I read on evolution (see below for my first book.)

It might surprise you that as a religious believer, I am recommending
books from two such virulent and strident atheists but as I have noted
elsewhere, whilst they are total pricks when writing about religion,
they are both outstandingly good when writing about the area where
they actually have expertise.

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

I have read quite a few *alleging* flaws in evolutionary theory but
they have all failed to convince me. that they have a better answer.
Here's a sample list:

'Of Pandas and People' - the very first book I ever read about
evolution which triggered my interest to find out more and led me to
initially to the Selfish Gene and then onto wider reading.

'Darwin's Black Box' - Michael Behe

'By Design or by Chance in the Universe' - Denise O'Leary

'Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological
Critique' produced by the ID movement, contributors including Stephen
Meyer, Doug Axe, Ann Gauger, Paul Nelson, Casey Luskin, and a host of
other ID proponents.

'Minding the Brain: Models of the Mind, Information, and Empirical
Science' - various authors, published by the Discovery Institute

'Return of the God Hypothesis' by Stephen Meyer who almost exactly
mirrors the Main arguments that you make for ID - the origins of the
Universe, DNA and coding/intelligence, the Cambrian explosion and
development of so many novel life-forms. I wrote a detailed review of
it here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/z8Yq7lvkAfU/m/um8mt8MDAgAJ

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
[…]

[Ernest Major]

Post by Martin Harran
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. A bit dated now and weak in
some areas like altruism but I have a soft spot for it as it was the
second-ever book I read on evolution (see below for my first book.)

The Dawkins' books that I'd recommend are "The Extended Phenotype"
(written for biologists, rather the general populace, but I found it
accessible, and covering somewhat of the same ground as "The Selfish
Gene"), and "The Ancestor's Tale" (a Gould essay collection written by
Dawkins, with a unifying theme of consecutive sister groups to Homo
sapiens).

The weakness I found in "The Selfish Gene" is that it confused the
individual/group selection dichotomy with the replicator/vehicle
dichotomy. That's fixed in "The Extended Phenotype".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Martin Harran
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. A bit dated now and weak in
some areas like altruism but I have a soft spot for it as it was the
second-ever book I read on evolution (see below for my first book.)

The Dawkins' books that I'd recommend are "The Extended Phenotype"

Absolutely. In many respects his best, but little known, book

Post by Ernest Major
(written for biologists, rather the general populace, but I found it
accessible, and covering somewhat of the same ground as "The Selfish
Gene"), and "The Ancestor's Tale" (a Gould essay collection written by
Dawkins, with a unifying theme of consecutive sister groups to Homo
sapiens).
The weakness I found in "The Selfish Gene" is that it confused the
individual/group selection dichotomy with the replicator/vehicle
dichotomy. That's fixed in "The Extended Phenotype".

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:24:30 +0100, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Martin Harran
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. A bit dated now and weak in
some areas like altruism but I have a soft spot for it as it was the
second-ever book I read on evolution (see below for my first book.)

The Dawkins' books that I'd recommend are "The Extended Phenotype"
(written for biologists, rather the general populace, but I found it
accessible, and covering somewhat of the same ground as "The Selfish
Gene"),

For some reason, "The Extended Phenotype" is one of the very few
Dawkins books that I never got around to reading but I'd take a bit of
convincing that someone with extensive knowledge of biology is a good
judge of how accessible it would be to those with less knowledge.

Post by Ernest Major
and "The Ancestor's Tale" (a Gould essay collection written by
Dawkins, with a unifying theme of consecutive sister groups to Homo
sapiens).

I started "The Ancestor's Tale" and initially thought it a great
approach but by about two thirds of the way through, I found it
becoming excruciatingly tedious and gave up on it.

Post by Ernest Major
The weakness I found in "The Selfish Gene" is that it confused the
individual/group selection dichotomy with the replicator/vehicle
dichotomy.

That's a good example of the sort of language that loses the general
populace :(

Post by Ernest Major
That's fixed in "The Extended Phenotype".

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:12:53 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

Would you recomend a few?

Only a Theory : Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and
Free Will

Both by Kenneth R. Miller.

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:12:53 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:15:24 -0400, Ron Dean
[snip for focus]

Post by Ron Dean
In my youth I came to accept evolution as a fact. But after reading a
book by Dr Michael Denton, on a challenge, I began to question the
"evidence" for evolution and that's where I am today.

When forming my own views on a subject, I always make an effort to
understand the various views on the subject. For example, on my
bookshelf, 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins sits alongside his
'God Delusion'; Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' sits alongside
his ' Faith Versus Fact'; Francis Collins's 'The Language of God' sits
alongside Stephen Meyer's 'God Hypothesis'.
What books or authors have you read you that argue against Intelligent
Design?

Would you recomend a few?

Only a Theory : Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and
Free Will
Both by Kenneth R. Miller.

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

Post by Martin Harran
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[Ernest Major]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

Is that an admission that "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", "Evolution on
Trial" and the "Neck of the Giraffe" don't point out any flaws in
evolutionary theory?

[LDagget]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

Is that an admission that "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", "Evolution
Trial" and the "Neck of the Giraffe" don't point out any flaws in
evolutionary theory?

Some books do a far better job of documenting the failures of the
book's author to understand evolutionary theory.

[jillery]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

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

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it
as "no data".

But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".

Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,
as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by
punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),
then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.

IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species". He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

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

[John Harshman]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign
proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and
equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it
as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,
as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by
punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),
then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems

1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.

2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.

3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range. Some
peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the original
publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple of
examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops rana.

4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

Post by John Harshman
Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

[jillery]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

I like this example:
<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>

From the abstract:
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************

Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

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

[John Harshman]

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************
Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************
Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.

Species can vary, even to a minor stage of evolution. We can observe
this with dogs, pigeons and mice. But we never observe major
evolutionary change on the family level. The specific information is not
present in the dog genome to evolve into anything with wings they can
never evolve out of the dog family into another family.

Furthermore, the origin of DNA and the origin of instructive information
can only be theorized. In the real world we actually see the loss of
information in DNA, but the origin of _new_ information in DNA is
rarely observed, if ever. But it must have happened for evolution to be
valid. The theory of evolution requires vast amounts of new specific
information to arise. But how? From our everyday experiences,
instructive information never just appears. Books don't write themselves
even if the printing press are automatic and set up to run, randomly
selecting letters of the alphabet and printing them. If you trace it
back specific information always cones from intelligence. Ten thousands
monkeys on keyboards in time of the earth's existence could not write a
book of 100 pages with meaning. What is the chances of blindly and
randomly selecting from a disordered alphabet and placing the letters in
proper A to Z order?

There is one chance in 26 of blindly selecting the A. One chance in 25
of selecting B next, One chance is 24 of select C next, one in 23 of
selecting D next, one 22 of E. so we have 26x25x24x23x22 equals
7,893,600. So, just getting the first five (5) letters in the proper
order is 1 chance in 7,893,600 and there is 21 letters remaining. Going
just through H = 1 chance in 2,999,568,000

In in a blind, aimless, random universe what chose the 20 - 22 amino
acids from the ones that existed 4000 years ago. One might ask can we
determine the number of acids that existed on earth 4 billion yeers ago.
But chances are at least 100 existed. So the chance are astronomical as
to the random selecting the 20 amino acids from 100. But time is the
hero, so given the millions of years anything can happen including
selecting these special 20 amino acids. . Looking at the chart below
how does mindless random processes "create" the right sequence or order
of these amino acids observed in the chart below to fashion proteins and
in the precise folding needed. There can be little variation.
So, as I see it, it requires tremendous faith to believe this could
happen without any intelligent guidance. Faith I do not have.

https://rsscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/read-codon-chart-table.pdf

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
  Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

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

[John Harshman]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************
Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.

Species can vary, even to a minor stage of evolution. We can observe
this with dogs, pigeons and mice. But we never observe major
evolutionary change on the family level. The specific information is not
present in the dog genome to evolve into anything with wings they can
never evolve out of the dog family into another family.

So you're saying that because we can only observe things that happen
over a short time, nothing more can have happened over a long time?

And what makes you think that evolving wings is an index of what's
needed to get to a different family?

Post by Ron Dean
Furthermore, the origin of DNA and the origin of instructive information
can only be theorized. In the real world we actually see the loss of
information in DNA, but the origin of  _new_ information in DNA is
rarely observed, if ever.

Not in any way true. New information originates all the time, and we can
see it happening frequently. Gene duplication, for example, creates a
great amount of new information. Of course your use of "information" is
probably as a meaningless buzzword; I sincerely doubt you have a
definition in mind.

Post by Ron Dean
But it must have happened for evolution to be
valid. The theory of evolution requires vast amounts of new specific
information to arise. But how? From our everyday experiences,
instructive information never just appears. Books don't write themselves
even if the printing press are automatic and set up to run, randomly
selecting letters of the alphabet and printing them. If you trace it
back specific information always cones from intelligence. Ten thousands
monkeys on keyboards in time of the earth's existence could not write a
book of 100 pages with meaning. What is the chances of blindly and
randomly selecting from a disordered alphabet and placing the letters in
proper A to Z order?

That's nice. But you see, DNA gets replicated, and replicated genomes
differ a bit from their templates. That's where new "information" comes
from. Nobody is making that happen. And replication is the opposite of
random. No monkeys, no typewriters, just slightly imperfect copying.

Post by Ron Dean
There is one chance in 26 of blindly selecting the A. One chance in 25
of selecting B next, One chance is 24 of select C next, one in 23 of
selecting D next, one 22 of E. so we have 26x25x24x23x22 equals
7,893,600. So, just getting the first five (5) letters in the proper
order is 1 chance in 7,893,600 and there is 21 letters remaining. Going
just through H = 1 chance in 2,999,568,000
In in a blind, aimless, random universe what chose the 20 - 22 amino
acids from the ones that existed 4000 years ago.

4000 years ago? Are you really a young-earth creationist??

Post by Ron Dean
One might ask can we
determine the number of acids that existed on earth 4 billion yeers ago.

OK, back to the normal timeline. Do you even pay attention to what
you're typing?

Post by Ron Dean
But chances are at least 100 existed. So the chance are astronomical as
to the random selecting the 20 amino acids from 100. But time is the
hero, so given the millions of years anything can happen including
selecting these special 20 amino acids. . Looking at the chart below how
does mindless random processes "create" the right sequence or order of
these amino acids observed in the chart below to fashion proteins and in
the precise folding needed. There can be little variation.
So, as I see it, it requires tremendous faith to believe this could
happen without any intelligent guidance. Faith I do not have.
https://rsscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/read-codon-chart-table.pdf

That was senseless. Any other sequence, any other ordering of the
genetic code, would also produce the same proteins as long as the
sequence of the mRNAs being translated was appropriate. And there can be
lots of variation in proteins. Have you ever even looked? This is a
subject on which you appear so profoundly ignorant that your ideas
depend entirely on faith.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
  Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated
equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign
proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species
(geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if
they came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous
deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************
Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.

 >
Species can vary, even to a minor stage of evolution. We can observe
this with dogs, pigeons and mice. But we never observe major
evolutionary change on the family level. The specific information is
not present in the dog genome to evolve into anything with wings they
can never evolve out of the dog family into another family.

So you're saying that because we can only observe things that happen
over a short time, nothing more can have happened over a long time?

Things can happen within a family, but nothing at or above family level,
because _new_ specific information would be required.

Post by John Harshman
And what makes you think that evolving wings is an index of what's
needed to get to a different family?

That certainly would be evolution at or above family. There is no
specific information for this to happen.

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
Furthermore, the origin of DNA and the origin of instructive
information can only be theorized. In the real world we actually see
the loss of information in DNA, but the origin of  _new_ information
in DNA is rarely observed, if ever.

Not in any way true. New information originates all the time, and we can
see it happening frequently. Gene duplication, for example, creates a
great amount of new information. Of course your use of "information" is
probably as a meaningless buzzword;

I disagree, repeating the same exact statement adds nothing. In a
sentence you inject a second word or series of words no new meaning
arises. It means nothing: it means nothing it: means nothing.
I sincerely doubt you have a

Post by John Harshman
definition in mind.

Specific information is instructions, procedure, direction, orders,
arrangement.

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
But it must have happened for evolution to be valid. The theory of
evolution requires vast amounts of new specific information to arise.
But how? From our everyday experiences, instructive information never
just appears. Books don't write themselves even if the printing press
are automatic and set up to run, randomly selecting letters of the
alphabet and printing them. If you trace it back specific information
always cones from intelligence. Ten thousands monkeys on keyboards in
time of the earth's existence could not write a book of 100 pages with
meaning. What is the chances of blindly and randomly selecting from a
disordered alphabet and placing the letters in proper A to Z order?

That's nice. But you see, DNA gets replicated, and replicated genomes
differ a bit from their templates. That's where new "information" comes
from. Nobody is making that happen. And replication is the opposite of
random. No monkeys, no typewriters, just slightly imperfect copying.

OK, but I suppose the edit and repair machinery is off on a tangent.

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
There is one chance in 26 of blindly selecting the A. One chance in 25
of selecting B next, One chance is 24 of select C next, one in 23 of
selecting D next, one 22 of E. so we have 26x25x24x23x22 equals
7,893,600. So, just getting the first five (5) letters in the proper
order is 1 chance in 7,893,600 and there is 21 letters remaining.
Going just through H = 1 chance in 2,999,568,000
In in a blind, aimless, random universe what chose the 20 - 22 amino
acids from the ones that existed 4000 years ago.

4000 years ago? Are you really a young-earth creationist??

No, my mistake! I meant 4 billion years ago. But the question was not
answered.

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
One might ask can we determine the number of acids that existed on
earth 4 billion years ago.

OK, back to the normal timeline. Do you even pay attention to what
you're typing?

Yes usually!

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
But chances are at least 100 existed. So the chance are astronomical
as to the random selecting the 20 amino acids from 100. But time is
the hero, so given the millions of years anything can happen including
selecting these special 20 amino acids. . Looking at the chart below
how does mindless random processes "create" the right sequence or
order of these amino acids observed in the chart below to fashion
proteins and in the precise folding needed. There can be little
variation.
So, as I see it, it requires tremendous faith to believe this could
happen without any intelligent guidance. Faith I do not have.
https://rsscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/read-codon-chart-table.pdf

That was senseless. Any other sequence, any other ordering of the
genetic code, would also produce the same proteins as long as the
sequence of the mRNAs being translated was appropriate.

You _know_ better than this. You are deliberately and purposely trying
to frustrate and confuse me! So, as I see it, my time on TO is a
complete waste of time!
And there can be

Post by John Harshman
lots of variation in proteins. Have you ever even looked? This is a
subject on which you appear so profoundly ignorant that your ideas
depend entirely on faith.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
  Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated
equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

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

[John Harshman]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign
proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in
evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species
(geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if
they came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous
deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************
Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.

 >
Species can vary, even to a minor stage of evolution. We can observe
this with dogs, pigeons and mice. But we never observe major
evolutionary change on the family level. The specific information is
not present in the dog genome to evolve into anything with wings they
can never evolve out of the dog family into another family.

So you're saying that because we can only observe things that happen
over a short time, nothing more can have happened over a long time?

Things can happen within a family, but nothing at or above family level,
because _new_ specific information would be required.

How did you come to this conclusion? What's your evidence? And you
should be aware that taxonomic ranks are arbitrary; "family" has no real
meaning.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman
And what makes you think that evolving wings is an index of what's
needed to get to a different family?

That certainly would be evolution at or above family. There is no
specific information for this to happen.

Whatever can you be talking about? What specific information would be
required to transform something like a Velociraptor into something like
an Archaeopteryx?

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
Furthermore, the origin of DNA and the origin of instructive
information can only be theorized. In the real world we actually see
the loss of information in DNA, but the origin of  _new_ information
in DNA is rarely observed, if ever.

Not in any way true. New information originates all the time, and we
can see it happening frequently. Gene duplication, for example,
creates a great amount of new information. Of course your use of
"information" is probably as a meaningless buzzword;

I disagree, repeating the same exact statement adds nothing.  In a
sentence you inject a second word or series of words no new meaning
arises. It means nothing: it means nothing it: means nothing.

Oddly enough, the genome isn't a sentence. And whether repeating a
statement adds information depends on the definition of information in
use. It certainly adds Shannon information. Nobody knows what you mean
by it.

Post by Ron Dean
I sincerely doubt you have a

Post by John Harshman
definition in mind.

Specific information is instructions, procedure, direction, orders,
arrangement.

That's not really a definition. And isn't a gene duplication a new
arrangement? What if the duplicated gene diverges from the existing gene?

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
But it must have happened for evolution to be valid. The theory of
evolution requires vast amounts of new specific information to arise.
But how? From our everyday experiences, instructive information never
just appears. Books don't write themselves even if the printing press
are automatic and set up to run, randomly selecting letters of the
alphabet and printing them. If you trace it back specific information
always cones from intelligence. Ten thousands monkeys on keyboards in
time of the earth's existence could not write a book of 100 pages
with meaning. What is the chances of blindly and randomly selecting
from a disordered alphabet and placing the letters in proper A to Z
order?

That's nice. But you see, DNA gets replicated, and replicated genomes
differ a bit from their templates. That's where new "information"
comes from. Nobody is making that happen. And replication is the
opposite of random. No monkeys, no typewriters, just slightly
imperfect copying.

OK, but I suppose the edit and repair machinery is off on a tangent.

Yes it is. Don't you have a real response?

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
There is one chance in 26 of blindly selecting the A. One chance in
25 of selecting B next, One chance is 24 of select C next, one in 23
of selecting D next, one 22 of E. so we have 26x25x24x23x22 equals
7,893,600. So, just getting the first five (5) letters in the proper
order is 1 chance in 7,893,600 and there is 21 letters remaining.
Going just through H = 1 chance in 2,999,568,000
In in a blind, aimless, random universe what chose the 20 - 22 amino
acids from the ones that existed 4000 years ago.

4000 years ago? Are you really a young-earth creationist??

No, my mistake!  I meant 4 billion years ago. But the question was not
answered.

Agreed. The question was rejected as pointless.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
One might ask can we determine the number of acids that existed on
earth 4 billion years ago.

OK, back to the normal timeline. Do you even pay attention to what
you're typing?

Yes usually!

Please do so more often. It seems an odd lapse.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
But chances are at least 100 existed. So the chance are astronomical
as to the random selecting the 20 amino acids from 100. But time is
the hero, so given the millions of years anything can happen
including selecting these special 20 amino acids. . Looking at the
chart below how does mindless random processes "create" the right
sequence or order of these amino acids observed in the chart below to
fashion proteins and in the precise folding needed. There can be
little variation.
So, as I see it, it requires tremendous faith to believe this could
happen without any intelligent guidance. Faith I do not have.
https://rsscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/read-codon-chart-table.pdf

That was senseless. Any other sequence, any other ordering of the
genetic code, would also produce the same proteins as long as the
sequence of the mRNAs being translated was appropriate.

You _know_ better than this.  You are deliberately and purposely trying
to frustrate and confuse me! So, as I see it, my time on TO is a
complete waste of time!

Everyone's time on TO is a complete waste of time. Since you are
incapable of learning, any attempt at discussion wastes your time and
mine. But I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm trying to respond to
gibberish as best I can. If I missed your point, whatever it was, it's
because you weren't clear.

I'll try again: you appear to be indulging in the Texas sharpshooter
fallacy. What are the odds of randomly getting what we see? Not a good
question. If we had arrived at some other mix, you would ask the odds of
arriving at that. You should instead ask the odds of arriving at some
viable code for some viable set of amino acids. (Nor would that be
random, but that's another question.)

Post by Ron Dean
And there can be

Post by John Harshman
lots of variation in proteins. Have you ever even looked? This is a
subject on which you appear so profoundly ignorant that your ideas
depend entirely on faith.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
  Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated
equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

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

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:10:10 -0700, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************
Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.

Peripheral isolate speciation doesn't inform this discussion. My
impression is it's something R.Dean tossed out to hide the hole into
which he's dug himself.

Post by John Harshman

Post by jillery

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign
proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and
ignored by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's
theory. I think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of
stasis followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species
(geologically speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no
change) then sudden disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which
is not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island of
Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit Mayr's
definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with one
another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have evolved
within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended from mice
introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they came with the
Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep valleys separated
by high ground that mice can't cross.)

I don't have a problem with this. I know about birds that surround an
island each grope can cross breed with the a-joining population in both
the fore and the back groups, but not beyond.

Post by John Harshman
 Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor.
Models of Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces
a couple of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite,
Phacops rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

[John Harshman]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they
saw it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and
ignored by scientist while searching for evidence to support
Darwin's theory. I think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of
stasis followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species
(geologically speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no
change) then sudden disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which
is not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and
I'm not sure you know what they are. They're just small,
geographically isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

I don't have a problem with this. I know about birds that surround an
island each grope can cross breed with the a-joining population in both
the fore and the back groups, but not beyond.

I think you're trying to talk about ring species. Two problems: that's
not what jillery is talking about, and there are in fact no known
examples of ring species of birds that surround an island.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
 Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor.
Models of Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it
produces a couple of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a
trilobite, Phacops rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular
with evolutionary biologists.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they
came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

I don't have a problem with this. I know about birds that surround an
island each grope can cross breed with the a-joining population in both
the fore and the back groups, but not beyond.

I think you're trying to talk about ring species.

He probably is, but the Madeira mice are not a ring species. None of
the species can beed with any of the others.

Post by John Harshman
Two problems: that's not what jillery is talking about, and there are
in fact no known examples of ring species of birds that surround an
island.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
 Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

[John Harshman]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points
out that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis
they saw it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and
ignored by scientist while searching for evidence to support
Darwin's theory. I think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of
stasis followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species
(geologically speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no
change) then sudden disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_
(evolved rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls
punctuated which is not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and
I'm not sure you know what they are. They're just small,
geographically isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the
island of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though
they fit Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed
either with one another or with the common European mouse. They
appear to have evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume
they are descended from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much
less than that if they came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an
island with numerous deep valleys separated by high ground that mice
can't cross.)

I don't have a problem with this. I know about birds that surround an
island each grope can cross breed with the a-joining population in
both the fore and the back groups, but not beyond.

I think you're trying to talk about ring species.

He probably is, but the Madeira mice are not a ring species. None of the
species can beed with any of the others.

Post by John Harshman
 Two problems: that's not what jillery is talking about, and there are
in fact no known examples of ring species of birds that surround an
island.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Harshman
 Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated
equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf
T.J.M. editor. Models of Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will
see that it produces a couple of examples of peripheral isolates,
notably in a trilobite, Phacops rana.
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular
with evolutionary biologists.

[Ron Dean]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign
proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in
evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

 >
I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and
ignored by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's
theory. I think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis.

I stated that sentence wrong. I unintentionally left out the word "by
punctuation" just after the word preceded!
So punctuated

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then
sudden disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.

I equated sudden disappearance with extinction. As I recall some 98+
species that ever lived became extinct.

Post by John Harshman
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.

Of course.

Post by John Harshman
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range. Some
peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the original
publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple of
examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops rana.

I was under the impression that peripheral isolates meant a population
separated by some boundry such as a river, mountain range, sea etc.
The

Post by John Harshman
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

I did know this, but I never understood why it was basically rejected..
I thought Gould and Eldredge explained the primary characteristic of the
fossil record as they saw it. But, when the fossil record depicts stasis
as a major characteristic, when gradual change over time is contemplated
and hoped for, equilibrium in the fossil record is not welcomed
observation.

[John Harshman]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign
proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

 >
I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and
ignored by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's
theory. I think that explains the "no data".
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis.

I stated that sentence wrong. I unintentionally left out the word "by
punctuation" just after the word preceded!

That just makes it more confused.

Post by Ron Dean
So punctuated

Post by John Harshman

Post by Ron Dean
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of
stasis followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species
(geologically speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no
change) then sudden disappearance.
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.

I equated sudden disappearance with extinction. As I recall some 98+
species that ever lived became extinct.

"Disappearance" isn't the problem. "Sudden" is the problem.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.

Of course.

That isn't what you said, even with your correction. It may be that your
big problem is the inability to express yourself clearly.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range. Some
peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the original
publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models
of Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a
couple of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite,
Phacops rana.

I was under the impression that peripheral isolates meant a population
separated by some boundry such as a river, mountain range, sea etc.

Possible, though it may just be a small distance of unsuitable habitat.
The "isolate" may be closely adjacent to the main population.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by John Harshman
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

I did know this,  but I never understood why it was basically rejected..
I thought Gould and Eldredge explained the primary characteristic of the
fossil record as they saw it. But, when the fossil record depicts stasis
as a major characteristic, when gradual change over time is contemplated
and hoped for, equilibrium in the fossil record is not welcomed
observation.

No, that isn't it. There are sound scientific reasons for rejecting PE,
not wishful thinking. That's your department. I could explain, but you
would be unlikely to understand. Here, regardless are a few points: PE
conflates morphospecies with biological species, peripheral isolates are
probably not the main mode of speciation, "phyletic gradualism" is a
strawman opponent, geographic and temporal sampling are not good enough
to determine the timing of speciation or of other evolutionary events.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:38:04 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it
as "no data".

You evaded the question. Since you claim to speak for Gould, you need
to cite where Gould said "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change". Anything less is evidence you know you don't know what
you're talking about.

Do everybody a favor and think for a few minutes what your words mean,
and you will recognize that your statement is logical nonsense. Gould
would never have said such a thing. Both "stasis" and "gradual" mean
the *same thing*; relatively little morphological change over
relatively long periods of time. Neither mean no change ever.

Post by Ron Dean
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".

Even if your recollection above is factually correct, it still doesn't
back up your claims; that stasis is the opposite of gradual change;
that Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium aka PE is evidence against
Darwinian evolution; and evidence for ID.

Post by Ron Dean
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,
as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by
punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),
then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.

Once again, what you wrote above is completely ass-backwards. Stasis
means equilibrium. According to PE, *rapid change* is preceded and
followed by *stasis*.

But your confusion above isn't even the problem here. Once again, it
*doesn't matter* to Darwinian evolution how fast or slow morphological
change takes place. In all cases it's still evolution. ID doesn't
even inform PE. I know you know this.

Post by Ron Dean
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species". He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time. They do not. You would know
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:38:04 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it
as "no data".

You evaded the question. Since you claim to speak for Gould, you need
to cite where Gould said "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change". Anything less is evidence you know you don't know what
you're talking about.
Do everybody a favor and think for a few minutes what your words mean,
and you will recognize that your statement is logical nonsense. Gould
would never have said such a thing. Both "stasis" and "gradual" mean
the *same thing*; relatively little morphological change over
relatively long periods of time. Neither mean no change ever.

Post by Ron Dean
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".

Even if your recollection above is factually correct, it still doesn't
back up your claims; that stasis is the opposite of gradual change;
that Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium aka PE is evidence against
Darwinian evolution; and evidence for ID.

Post by Ron Dean
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,
as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by
punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),
then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.

Once again, what you wrote above is completely ass-backwards. Stasis
means equilibrium. According to PE, *rapid change* is preceded and
followed by *stasis*.

I know this. I unintentionally left out the word "punctuated"

Post by jillery
But your confusion above isn't even the problem here. Once again, it
*doesn't matter* to Darwinian evolution how fast or slow morphological
change takes place. In all cases it's still evolution. ID doesn't
even inform PE. I know you know this.

Post by Ron Dean
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species". He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.

No! Not particular: gradual change over time is evolutionary change over
some time factor.
Rapid Change could imply change over a comparatively short period time -
say 100,000 years.

They do not. You would know

Post by jillery
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

The views I express are mine, not those of cdesign proponents.

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

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:18:31 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:38:04 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it
as "no data".

You evaded the question. Since you claim to speak for Gould, you need
to cite where Gould said "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change". Anything less is evidence you know you don't know what
you're talking about.
Do everybody a favor and think for a few minutes what your words mean,
and you will recognize that your statement is logical nonsense. Gould
would never have said such a thing. Both "stasis" and "gradual" mean
the *same thing*; relatively little morphological change over
relatively long periods of time. Neither mean no change ever.

Post by Ron Dean
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".

Even if your recollection above is factually correct, it still doesn't
back up your claims; that stasis is the opposite of gradual change;
that Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium aka PE is evidence against
Darwinian evolution; and evidence for ID.

Post by Ron Dean
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,
as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by
punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),
then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.

Once again, what you wrote above is completely ass-backwards. Stasis
means equilibrium. According to PE, *rapid change* is preceded and
followed by *stasis*.

I know this. I unintentionally left out the word "punctuated"

Neither the above correction nor the one you provided Harshman helps
your claims. You would be better off to just admit you have no idea
what you're talking about.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
But your confusion above isn't even the problem here. Once again, it
*doesn't matter* to Darwinian evolution how fast or slow morphological
change takes place. In all cases it's still evolution. ID doesn't
even inform PE. I know you know this.

Post by Ron Dean
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species". He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.

No! Not particular: gradual change over time is evolutionary change over
some time factor.
Rapid Change could imply change over a comparatively short period time -
say 100,000 years.

Rapid change *could* imply lots of things. The point is, regardless
of the time period, it's still evolution. Not sure how even you still
don't understand this.

Post by Ron Dean
They do not. You would know

Post by jillery
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

The views I express are mine, not those of cdesign proponents.

Based on your posts, you're unambiguously a cdesign proponentist. Not
sure how even you still don't recognize this.

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:18:31 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:38:04 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.

IOW - None!

IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it
as "no data".

You evaded the question. Since you claim to speak for Gould, you need
to cite where Gould said "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change". Anything less is evidence you know you don't know what
you're talking about.
Do everybody a favor and think for a few minutes what your words mean,
and you will recognize that your statement is logical nonsense. Gould
would never have said such a thing. Both "stasis" and "gradual" mean
the *same thing*; relatively little morphological change over
relatively long periods of time. Neither mean no change ever.

Post by Ron Dean
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".

Even if your recollection above is factually correct, it still doesn't
back up your claims; that stasis is the opposite of gradual change;
that Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium aka PE is evidence against
Darwinian evolution; and evidence for ID.

Post by Ron Dean
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,
as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by
punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),
then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.

Once again, what you wrote above is completely ass-backwards. Stasis
means equilibrium. According to PE, *rapid change* is preceded and
followed by *stasis*.

I know this. I unintentionally left out the word "punctuated"

Neither the above correction nor the one you provided Harshman helps
your claims. You would be better off to just admit you have no idea
what you're talking about.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
But your confusion above isn't even the problem here. Once again, it
*doesn't matter* to Darwinian evolution how fast or slow morphological
change takes place. In all cases it's still evolution. ID doesn't
even inform PE. I know you know this.

Post by Ron Dean
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species". He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.

No! Not particular: gradual change over time is evolutionary change over
some time factor.
Rapid Change could imply change over a comparatively short period time -
say 100,000 years.

Rapid change *could* imply lots of things. The point is, regardless
of the time period, it's still evolution. Not sure how even you still
don't understand this.

The problem is we observe the results of evolutionary, and rarely if
ever the actual evolution. What's
observed is captured in a schematic demonstrating _evolution_ of a
daughter species by a dotted line and stasis is depicted as a wavy line
that ends up with the daughter line looking quite the same at the end as
at the beginning.

Post by jillery
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/evolution/punctuated-equilibrium-and-stasis/

Post by Ron Dean
They do not. You would know

Post by jillery
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

The views I express are mine, not those of cdesign proponents.

Based on your posts, you're unambiguously a cdesign proponentist. Not
sure how even you still don't recognize this.

I do recognize and acknowledge myself as intelligent design proponent.
As I see it, design is obvious and real, not apparent or an illusion as
is described by Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins defines "biology as the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’, he believes that
appearances are deceiving. Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid
objects that look designed, so much so that some people – probably,
alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are
wrong, the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very
different."

Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for
a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Dawkins uses the word 'overwhelming' in his description of "apparent
and illusionary design." “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker,
blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no
purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}

So, it's obvious that Dawkins a a professed atheist has no alternative,
but to explain away deliberate, purposeful, observed design, then he
turns to natural processes as a means of defense of his atheist bias by
explaining away what could very well be observed as deliberate
purposeful design to anyone who not committed.


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2597924

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

[El Kabong]

Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid
objects that look designed, so much so that some people – probably,
alas, most people – think that they are designed.

Then again, there are your designoid objects that clearly
look evolved. Like bird feet that evolved for different
lifestyles, all from scaly dinosaur feet.

Ron, you've got to know your designoid objects better.

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:16:53 -0400, Ron Dean
<snip uncommented text>

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.

No! Not particular: gradual change over time is evolutionary change over
some time factor.
Rapid Change could imply change over a comparatively short period time -
say 100,000 years.

Rapid change *could* imply lots of things. The point is, regardless
of the time period, it's still evolution. Not sure how even you still
don't understand this.

The problem is we observe the results of evolutionary, and rarely if
ever the actual evolution.

The problem is your comments above are incoherent gibberish. Add the
above to your previous nonsense, that "stasis is the exact opposite of
gradual change", and all you manage to prove is you have no idea what
you're talking about.

Post by Ron Dean
What's
observed is captured in a schematic demonstrating _evolution_ of a
daughter species by a dotted line and stasis is depicted as a wavy line
that ends up with the daughter line looking quite the same at the end as
at the beginning.
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/evolution/punctuated-equilibrium-and-stasis/

It's no surprise you don't understand your own cites. Do everybody a
favor and try to explain how your cite above is evidence against
Darwinian evolution and for ID.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
They do not. You would know

Post by jillery
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

The views I express are mine, not those of cdesign proponents.

Based on your posts, you're unambiguously a cdesign proponentist. Not
sure how even you still don't recognize this.

I do recognize and acknowledge myself as intelligent design proponent.

And the difference between "intelligent design proponent" and "cdesign
proponentsist" is... ??? You don't say. Why is that?

Post by Ron Dean
As I see it, design is obvious and real, not apparent or an illusion as
is described by Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins defines "biology as the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’, he believes that
appearances are deceiving. Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid
objects that look designed, so much so that some people – probably,
alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are
wrong, the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very
different."
Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for
a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Dawkins uses the word 'overwhelming' in his description of "apparent
and illusionary design." “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker,
blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no
purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
So, it's obvious that Dawkins a a professed atheist has no alternative,
but to explain away deliberate, purposeful, observed design, then he
turns to natural processes as a means of defense of his atheist bias by
explaining away what could very well be observed as deliberate
purposeful design to anyone who not committed.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2597924

Once again, you jump from an incoherent ramble about Gould and PE to
an incoherent ramble about Dawkins and atheism, without even trying to
explain how anything you wrote disproves evolution or supports ID. Why
is that?

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

[Ron Dean]

Post by jillery
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:16:53 -0400, Ron Dean
<snip uncommented text>

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.

No! Not particular: gradual change over time is evolutionary change over
some time factor.
Rapid Change could imply change over a comparatively short period time -
say 100,000 years.

Rapid change *could* imply lots of things. The point is, regardless
of the time period, it's still evolution. Not sure how even you still
don't understand this.

The problem is we observe the results of evolutionary, and rarely if
ever the actual evolution.

The problem is your comments above are incoherent gibberish. Add the
above to your previous nonsense, that "stasis is the exact opposite of
gradual change", and all you manage to prove is you have no idea what
you're talking about.

It's becoming increasingly more and more obvious, you do not have the
capability to comprehend.>

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
What's
observed is captured in a schematic demonstrating _evolution_ of a
daughter species by a dotted line and stasis is depicted as a wavy line
that ends up with the daughter line looking quite the same at the end as
at the beginning.
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/evolution/punctuated-equilibrium-and-stasis/

It's no surprise you don't understand your own cites. Do everybody a
favor and try to explain how your cite above is evidence against
Darwinian evolution and for ID.

You failed to comprehend the fact that the wavy line to the _right_ of
the parent was the daughter.
The dotted lines represented the supposed evolution.

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
They do not. You would know

Post by jillery
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

The views I express are mine, not those of cdesign proponents.

Based on your posts, you're unambiguously a cdesign proponentist. Not
sure how even you still don't recognize this.

I do recognize and acknowledge myself as intelligent design proponent.

And the difference between "intelligent design proponent" and "cdesign
proponentsist" is... ??? You don't say. Why is that?

It's obvious cdesign is a deliberate, purposeful and utterly dishonest
false representation!

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
As I see it, design is obvious and real, not apparent or an illusion as
is described by Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins defines "biology as the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’, he believes that
appearances are deceiving. Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid
objects that look designed, so much so that some people – probably,
alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are
wrong, the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very
different."
Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for
a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Dawkins uses the word 'overwhelming' in his description of "apparent
and illusionary design." “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker,
blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no
purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
So, it's obvious that Dawkins a a professed atheist has no alternative,
but to explain away deliberate, purposeful, observed design, then he
turns to natural processes as a means of defense of his atheist bias by
explaining away what could very well be observed as deliberate
purposeful design to anyone who not committed.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2597924

Once again, you jump from an incoherent ramble about Gould and PE to
an incoherent ramble about Dawkins and atheism, without even trying to
explain how anything you wrote disproves evolution or supports ID. Why
is that?

You are incapable of understand just plain English, so it obvious you
engage in personal ranting insults, slander and character assassination
order to obscure or hide your own failures and mental shortcomings. I'm
wasting my time with you, because of your inabilities.

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

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:27:59 -0400, Ron Dean

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:16:53 -0400, Ron Dean
<snip uncommented text>

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery
Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.

No! Not particular: gradual change over time is evolutionary change over
some time factor.
Rapid Change could imply change over a comparatively short period time -
say 100,000 years.

Rapid change *could* imply lots of things. The point is, regardless
of the time period, it's still evolution. Not sure how even you still
don't understand this.

The problem is we observe the results of evolutionary, and rarely if
ever the actual evolution.

The problem is your comments above are incoherent gibberish. Add the
above to your previous nonsense, that "stasis is the exact opposite of
gradual change", and all you manage to prove is you have no idea what
you're talking about.

It's becoming increasingly more and more obvious, you do not have the
capability to comprehend.

You're absolutely correct. I freely admit I don't comprehend
incoherent gibberish. Bad jillery, bad, bad, bad. So very bad.

So to review:

"stasis is the exact opposite of gradual change"
"we observe the results of evolutionary, and rarely if ever the actual
evolution."

I suppose one way to win an argument is to post nonsense, and then
expect me to figure out what you meant.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
What's
observed is captured in a schematic demonstrating _evolution_ of a
daughter species by a dotted line and stasis is depicted as a wavy line
that ends up with the daughter line looking quite the same at the end as
at the beginning.
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/evolution/punctuated-equilibrium-and-stasis/

It's no surprise you don't understand your own cites. Do everybody a
favor and try to explain how your cite above is evidence against
Darwinian evolution and for ID.

You failed to comprehend the fact that the wavy line to the _right_ of
the parent was the daughter.
The dotted lines represented the supposed evolution.

Are you now claiming that no evolution occurred? Or are you claiming
that daughters are purposefully designed? Exactly what is your
objection here? You don't say. Why is that?

To review, your cite distinguishes between phyletic gradualism and
punctuated equilibrium. Contrary to what you say, wavy lines vs
dotted lines are used *only* to emphasize that difference.

The difference is based on *a pattern of change*, ie how much occurred
in a given period of time. In some cases, change happened relatively
rapidly followed by relatively little change. In other cases, change
happened relatively slowly and relatively evenly.

The key word above is "relatively". While both models recognize that
change occurred, the amount of change, and the period of time, *are
completely arbitrary*. An example of phyletic gradualism can be
viewed as punctuated equilibrium merely by focusing on a shorter
period of time, which would necessarily ignore any static interval.
Similarly, an example of punctuated equilibrium can be viewed as
phyletic gradualism merely by focusing on a longer period of time,
which would necessarily average more changes into any static
intervals.

Despite the many times over many years you have raised Gould's
punctuated equilibrium, you have never *explained* how you think
punctuated equilibrium is supposed to be evidence for Intelligent
Design, except to baldly assert that it does. Until you do explain,
your regular references to punctuated equilibrium are nothing more
than mindless spam.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
They do not. You would know

Post by jillery
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

The views I express are mine, not those of cdesign proponents.

Based on your posts, you're unambiguously a cdesign proponentist. Not
sure how even you still don't recognize this.

I do recognize and acknowledge myself as intelligent design proponent.

And the difference between "intelligent design proponent" and "cdesign
proponentsist" is... ??? You don't say. Why is that?

It's obvious cdesign is a deliberate, purposeful and utterly dishonest
false representation!

I agree. It was intelligent design proponents who dishonestly changed
a Creationist biology textbook into an Intelligent Design one. I know
you know this.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by jillery

Post by Ron Dean
As I see it, design is obvious and real, not apparent or an illusion as
is described by Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins defines "biology as the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’, he believes that
appearances are deceiving. Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid
objects that look designed, so much so that some people – probably,
alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are
wrong, the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very
different."
Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for
a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Dawkins uses the word 'overwhelming' in his description of "apparent
and illusionary design." “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker,
blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no
purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
So, it's obvious that Dawkins a a professed atheist has no alternative,
but to explain away deliberate, purposeful, observed design, then he
turns to natural processes as a means of defense of his atheist bias by
explaining away what could very well be observed as deliberate
purposeful design to anyone who not committed.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2597924

Once again, you jump from an incoherent ramble about Gould and PE to
an incoherent ramble about Dawkins and atheism, without even trying to
explain how anything you wrote disproves evolution or supports ID. Why
is that?

You are incapable of understand just plain English, so it obvious you
engage in personal ranting insults, slander and character assassination
order to obscure or hide your own failures and mental shortcomings. I'm
wasting my time with you, because of your inabilities.

You should try using *coherent* English, if only for the novelty of
the experience.

And stop lying about me; it makes you sound desperate.

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

[El Kabong]

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

Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion. It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.

The earth is awash in exergy. It has always been there
for the taking. The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift. Extinction almost always happens due to
environment & competition, humans included.

You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

[erik simpson]

Post by El Kabong

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

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

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by El Kabong

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

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

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

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

Sanitation? No competent *actual* engineer who understands
thermodynamics would make the sort of egregious errors
regarding the scope and application of the 2nd Law shown
above.

[Ron Dean]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by El Kabong

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

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

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

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

Sanitation? No competent *actual* engineer who understands
thermodynamics would make the sort of egregious errors
regarding the scope and application of the 2nd Law shown
above.

You don't know what your "talking" about. When something unwinds, runs
down or becomes disordered, this is increasing entropy, there is no
energy for work; which is in accordance with the 2/nd law.
Entropy in a system is a measure of the _unavailable_ energy in a
closed thermodynamic system that is a a measure of the system's
disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies
directly with any reversible change in heat in the system: the degree of
disorder or uncertainty in a system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

[LDagget]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by El Kabong

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

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

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

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

Sanitation? No competent *actual* engineer who understands
thermodynamics would make the sort of egregious errors
regarding the scope and application of the 2nd Law shown
above.

You don't know what your "talking" about. When something unwinds, runs
down or becomes disordered, this is increasing entropy, there is no
energy for work; which is in accordance with the 2/nd law.
Entropy in a system is a measure of the _unavailable_ energy in a
closed thermodynamic system that is a a measure of the system's
disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies
directly with any reversible change in heat in the system: the degree of
disorder or uncertainty in a system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

You've already written enough incorrect things about entropy
that no knowledgeable person can do other than laugh at you.
But to keep the laughs going,

Explain what you think is the difference between the entropy
of an original DNA polymer, and a copy that includes a single
base pair change mutation. Feel free to show your work and
don't forget to put it in units of entropy.

[jillery]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by El Kabong

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

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

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

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

RDean once claimed he's a design engineer. How's that for irony?

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

[erik simpson]

Post by jillery
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by El Kabong

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

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

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

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

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

I don't think I'd want to be subjected to one of his designs. My fridge
works fine, even though he might claim it's breaking the 2nd law.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by El Kabong

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

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

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

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

Three guys in the pub are discussing the female body and who designed
it.

First guy says "Must have been an architect - just look at those
beautiful curves."

Second guy says "Muat have been an engineer - look how well it is
designed for reproduction and child feeding."

Third guy says, "Nah, had to be a town planner - who else would place
the pleasure gardens with waterworks on one side and a sewage outlet
on the other side!"

[LDagget]

Post by El Kabong

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

Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion. It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.

Among the errors in Ron Dean's post is that he has confused the
meaning of "Genetic Code". He's invoking some confused hodge-podge
thing which is some mix of genome sequence and the Genetic Code.
Genetic Code of course means the matching between nucleotide
triplets and amino acids or stops.

Of course it is also true that he has utterly failed to understand
how the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually works within a system
that is a chemical engine that burns through vast quantities of
free energy.

[Ron Dean]

Post by El Kabong

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

Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion. It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.

That's an easy claim to make where no proof is offered. It's just you
stupid opinion!

Post by El Kabong
The earth is awash in exergy. It has always been there
for the taking. The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift.

Errors, omissions and other mutations happen, this is running down this
is increasing entropy.
The 2/ND law was stated by a locomotive engineer who observed that in a
_closed_ system energy always runs down, this is increasing entropy.
Heat flows from hot to cooler, never the reverse.

You are right the earth is an open system, receiving energy from the
sun, but even in open systems increasing entropy occurs. For example: a
house, after being deserted runs down and over time becomes completely
disordered this is increasing entropy, which is in accord with the 2/nd law.
A tree grows from a seed this is decreasing entropy receiving energy
from the sun, and the tree
grows matures and then dies. Now even though the dead tree continues to
receive solar energy it
will decay and turn to dust. How do you explain that in terms of the
2/nd law?

Extinction almost always happens due to

Post by El Kabong
environment & competition, humans included.
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.

I am an engineer MsEE. For your information according to the 2/ND law
of thermodynamics the earth is an open system, but the second law was
originally defined by Carnot a steam engine engineer. He defined the
2/ND law in terms of a closed system. He cared nothing about open
systems. But he, Carnot formulated the second law of thermodynamics.

Post by El Kabong

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

So Gould was an IDer. Who knew?

No, that's not my claim. Stephen Gould observed the traits and
characteristics of the fossil record and he tried to interpret what he
found to fit within the scope of evolution. He never changed his mind.
He died an evolutionist.

[erik simpson]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by El Kabong

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

Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion.  It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.

That's an easy claim to make where no proof is offered. It's just you
stupid opinion!

Post by El Kabong
The earth is awash in exergy.  It has always been there
for the taking.  The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift.

Errors, omissions and other mutations happen, this is running down this
is increasing entropy.
The 2/ND law was stated by a locomotive engineer who observed that in a
_closed_ system energy always runs down, this is increasing entropy.
Heat flows from hot to cooler, never the reverse.
You are right the earth is an open system, receiving energy from the
sun, but even in open systems increasing entropy occurs. For example: a
house, after being deserted runs down and over time becomes completely
disordered this is increasing entropy, which is in accord with the 2/nd law.
A tree grows from a seed this is decreasing entropy receiving energy
from the sun, and the tree
grows matures and then dies. Now even though the dead tree continues to
receive solar energy it
will decay and turn to dust. How do you explain that in terms of the
2/nd law?
Extinction almost always happens due to

Post by El Kabong
environment & competition, humans included.
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.

I am an engineer MsEE.  For your information according to the 2/ND law
of thermodynamics the earth is an open system, but the second law was
originally defined by Carnot a steam engine engineer. He defined the
2/ND law in terms of a closed system. He cared nothing about open
systems.  But he, Carnot formulated the second law of thermodynamics.

Post by El Kabong

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

So Gould was an IDer.  Who knew?

No, that's not my claim. Stephen Gould observed the traits and
characteristics of the fossil record and he tried to interpret what he
found to fit within the scope of evolution. He never changed his mind.
He died an evolutionist.

You must have encountered thermodynamics in your education, but you
continue to refer to any deleterious changes as "due to entropy".
Entropy has a well-defined, precise meaning in physics, and applying
this idea to deserted houses, living orgamisms or the theory of
evolution is pointless. On the other hand, applying it in the context
of entropy in information theory, you are a prime source of entropy.
The information content in your sequence of posts on the subject is
apparently approaching its extremum (in this case, a maxiimum).

[Ron Dean]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Ron Dean

Post by El Kabong

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

Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion.  It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.

 >
That's an easy claim to make where no proof is offered. It's just you
stupid opinion!

Post by El Kabong
The earth is awash in exergy.  It has always been there
for the taking.  The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift.

 >
Errors, omissions and other mutations happen, this is running down
this is increasing entropy.
The 2/ND law was stated by a locomotive engineer who observed that in
a _closed_ system energy always runs down, this is increasing entropy.
Heat flows from hot to cooler, never the reverse.
You are right the earth is an open system, receiving energy from the
a house, after being deserted runs down and over time becomes
completely disordered this is increasing entropy, which is in accord
with the 2/nd law.
A tree grows from a seed this is decreasing entropy receiving energy
from the sun, and the tree
grows matures and then dies. Now even though the dead tree continues
to receive solar energy it
will decay and turn to dust. How do you explain that in terms of the
2/nd law?
Extinction almost always happens due to

Post by El Kabong
environment & competition, humans included.
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.

I am an engineer MsEE.  For your information according to the 2/ND law
of thermodynamics the earth is an open system, but the second law was
originally defined by Carnot a steam engine engineer. He defined the
2/ND law in terms of a closed system. He cared nothing about open
systems.  But he, Carnot formulated the second law of thermodynamics.

Post by El Kabong

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

So Gould was an IDer.  Who knew?

No, that's not my claim. Stephen Gould observed the traits and
characteristics of the fossil record and he tried to interpret what he
found to fit within the scope of evolution. He never changed his mind.
He died an evolutionist.

You must have encountered thermodynamics in your education, but you
continue to refer to any deleterious changes as "due to entropy".

So, deleterious change is not disorder?

Post by erik simpson
Entropy has a well-defined, precise meaning in physics, and applying
this idea to deserted houses, living orgamisms or the theory of
evolution is pointless.  On the other hand, applying it in the context
of entropy in information theory, you are a prime source of entropy. The
information content in your sequence of posts on the subject is
apparently approaching its extremum (in this case, a maxiimum).

[erik simpson]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by erik simpson

Post by Ron Dean

Post by El Kabong

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

Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion.  It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.

 >
That's an easy claim to make where no proof is offered. It's just you
stupid opinion!

Post by El Kabong
The earth is awash in exergy.  It has always been there
for the taking.  The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift.

 >
Errors, omissions and other mutations happen, this is running down
this is increasing entropy.
The 2/ND law was stated by a locomotive engineer who observed that in
a _closed_ system energy always runs down, this is increasing
entropy. Heat flows from hot to cooler, never the reverse.
You are right the earth is an open system, receiving energy from the
a house, after being deserted runs down and over time becomes
completely disordered this is increasing entropy, which is in accord
with the 2/nd law.
A tree grows from a seed this is decreasing entropy receiving energy
from the sun, and the tree
grows matures and then dies. Now even though the dead tree continues
to receive solar energy it
will decay and turn to dust. How do you explain that in terms of the
2/nd law?
Extinction almost always happens due to

Post by El Kabong
environment & competition, humans included.
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.

I am an engineer MsEE.  For your information according to the 2/ND
law of thermodynamics the earth is an open system, but the second law
was originally defined by Carnot a steam engine engineer. He defined
the 2/ND law in terms of a closed system. He cared nothing about open
systems.  But he, Carnot formulated the second law of thermodynamics.

Post by El Kabong

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

So Gould was an IDer.  Who knew?

No, that's not my claim. Stephen Gould observed the traits and
characteristics of the fossil record and he tried to interpret what
he found to fit within the scope of evolution. He never changed his
mind. He died an evolutionist.

You must have encountered thermodynamics in your education, but you
continue to refer to any deleterious changes as "due to entropy".

So, deleterious change is not disorder?

Do you have problems reading dictionaries too? The words' commonality is
that they both begin with 'd'.

Post by Ron Dean

Post by erik simpson
Entropy has a well-defined, precise meaning in physics, and applying
this idea to deserted houses, living orgamisms or the theory of
evolution is pointless.  On the other hand, applying it in the context
of entropy in information theory, you are a prime source of entropy.
The information content in your sequence of posts on the subject is
apparently approaching its extremum (in this case, a maxiimum).

[Chris Thompson]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by erik simpson

Post by Ron Dean

Post by El Kabong

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

Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
common creationist diversion.  It started as a deliberate
misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
yourself.

 >
That's an easy claim to make where no proof is offered. It's just you
stupid opinion!

Post by El Kabong
The earth is awash in exergy.  It has always been there
for the taking.  The 2nd law has naught to do with
genetic drift.

 >
Errors, omissions and other mutations happen, this is running down
this is increasing entropy.
The 2/ND law was stated by a locomotive engineer who observed that in
a _closed_ system energy always runs down, this is increasing
entropy. Heat flows from hot to cooler, never the reverse.
You are right the earth is an open system, receiving energy from the
a house, after being deserted runs down and over time becomes
completely disordered this is increasing entropy, which is in accord
with the 2/nd law.
A tree grows from a seed this is decreasing entropy receiving energy
from the sun, and the tree
grows matures and then dies. Now even though the dead tree continues
to receive solar energy it
will decay and turn to dust. How do you explain that in terms of the
2/nd law?
Extinction almost always happens due to

Post by El Kabong
environment & competition, humans included.
You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
Law to you.

I am an engineer MsEE.  For your information according to the 2/ND
law of thermodynamics the earth is an open system, but the second law
was originally defined by Carnot a steam engine engineer. He defined
the 2/ND law in terms of a closed system. He cared nothing about open
systems.  But he, Carnot formulated the second law of thermodynamics.

Post by El Kabong

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

So Gould was an IDer.  Who knew?

No, that's not my claim. Stephen Gould observed the traits and
characteristics of the fossil record and he tried to interpret what
he found to fit within the scope of evolution. He never changed his
mind. He died an evolutionist.

You must have encountered thermodynamics in your education, but you
continue to refer to any deleterious changes as "due to entropy".

So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.

Chris

snip

[LDagget]

Post by Chris Thompson

Post by Ron Dean
So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and
replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris

I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.

[erik simpson]

Post by LDagget

Post by Chris Thompson

Post by Ron Dean
So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris

I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.

There's lots of reasons to miss Paul. In the deep past, as a
theoretical astrophysicist I dealt with statistical mechanics and thermo
on a regular basis. Entropy as a concept takes some thought, but isn't
as mysterious as is sometimes described. Some confusion appears when
"entropy" as a concept is used in other fields, such as information
theory. I won't argue whether its use there is analogous or homologous,
and in any event, I've not had much experience in that area.

Our most prominent current troll conflates these concepts and throws
around "inevitable decline", "disorder", "design", etc casually and
carelessly against a backdrop of astonishing ignorance of which he seems
unaware.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LDagget

Post by Chris Thompson

Post by Ron Dean
So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris

I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.

Past expertise is always better than present one, eh?

Jan

[LDagget]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LDagget

Post by Chris Thompson

Post by Ron Dean
So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris

I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.

Past expertise is always better than present one, eh?
Jan

Oh I realize that a number of people here have expertise in
thermodynamics,
but it used to go deeper. Further, it included some with excellent
skills
in communication, the sort that sometimes arises from decades of
teaching
both freshman classes and graduate level classes. Without impugning
your
knowledge, your writings here have never had the same powerful didactic
clarity as a Gans, Carlip, Parsons, or Hamilton. Of course it's all
wasted
on RDean.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LDagget

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LDagget

Post by Chris Thompson

Post by Ron Dean
So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris

I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.

Past expertise is always better than present one, eh?
Jan

Oh I realize that a number of people here have expertise in
thermodynamics, but it used to go deeper. Further, it included some with
excellent skills in communication, the sort that sometimes arises from
decades of teaching both freshman classes and graduate level classes.

You might have remembered that I did participate in those discussions,
long long ago, before I more or less gave up on t.o.

Jan

[erik simpson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LDagget

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LDagget

Post by Chris Thompson

Post by Ron Dean
So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris

I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.

Past expertise is always better than present one, eh?
Jan

Oh I realize that a number of people here have expertise in
thermodynamics, but it used to go deeper. Further, it included some with
excellent skills in communication, the sort that sometimes arises from
decades of teaching both freshman classes and graduate level classes.

You might have remembered that I did participate in those discussions,
long long ago, before I more or less gave up on t.o.
Jan

I can understand your frustration. TO is having a near-death
experience, with R. Dean's boring nonsense being 99% of the action.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:01:25 -0700, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LDagget

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LDagget

Post by Chris Thompson

Post by Ron Dean
So, deleterious change is not disorder?

How does removing glutamic acid from a particular sequence and replacing
it with valine increase entropy? Show your math, please.
Chris

I want to note how much I miss Paul Gans and other thermodynamics
experts.

Past expertise is always better than present one, eh?
Jan

Oh I realize that a number of people here have expertise in
thermodynamics, but it used to go deeper. Further, it included some with
excellent skills in communication, the sort that sometimes arises from
decades of teaching both freshman classes and graduate level classes.

You might have remembered that I did participate in those discussions,
long long ago, before I more or less gave up on t.o.
Jan

I can understand your frustration. TO is having a near-death
experience, with R. Dean's boring nonsense being 99% of the action.

Both R.Dean's and Lodder's posts tend to be examples of willful
stupidity. R. Dean claims certain medical conditions. Not sure what
Lodder's excuse is.

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

[LDagget]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441

After I check the local library I'll look into this.

Post by Ernest Major
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical
anti-evolutionism."

Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not
the math then what?

The answer is obvious as any student of engineering would know, and
much
more so one hopes of someone who claims to have a graduate degree.
That answer is twofold. The wrong math was applied to a model, or the
wrong
model was applied making the math irrelevant garbage.

Towards that, you imply really ignorant models to the rise of the first
proteins. It is evident that you don't understand the observed
chemistry
of RNA polymers. It is also evident that you don't understand the
chemistry
that goes into making stable proteins. It is also clear that you have
no understanding of the various theories for the evolution of the
Genetic Code which is often tied to the production of fairly short
polypeptides from a reduced set of amino acids in a primordial Genetic
Code.

So you not only don't even know what the term Genetic Code actually
means as a term of art, but you don't understand the requisite
biochemistry,
or organic chemistry, or what is a reasonable model or not.

Despite that, you proudly claim to have uncovered profound mathematical
problems with the rise of the first proteins. Astounding if typical for
you.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by Ron Dean

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing
on the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441

After I check the local library I'll look into this.

Post by Ernest Major
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."

Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not
the math then what?
I don't think it's fair to call someone an anti-evolutionist.

You have repeatedly argued that a person's presumed motives, even when
there is no evidence that the presumption is true, is of utmost
importance in evaluating their arguments. So your complaint about
calling someone who is anti-evolution an "anti-evolutionist" is grossly
hypocritical, in addition to bordering on the absurd.

Post by Ron Dean
This is a
disparagement meant to discredit an opposition without a hearing. It's
like a court where the prosecutor presents his case, but  a defense is
not allowed. But a fair decision is expected.
But you cannot challenge the mathematics. What is the chance of a single
functional protein can form through unguided, random and aimless
processes?

That's easy. The chance is one. We know that a great variety of proteins
can form from aimless processes. And there are also endless
opportunities for any of them to find a function. And there are
well-known non-random processes that can adjust the proteins (and
perhaps the functions) to make them even more efficient. Anyone who
found odds significantly less than one is not doing good mathematics,
and must be challenged.

Post by Ron Dean
For example, in the pre-biotic earth the first protein of say
150 (the average number amino acids in a protein is 500-400) amino acids
in a specific order is needed. Even in an ocean of amino acids and 4.5
billion years. It's said  it would be less chance than the number atoms
in the known universe. As you know in the pre-biotic universe there is
no natural selection.
"......we can calculate the probability of building our very modest
protein."
http://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaAfunctional protein to be 1 in
10^164.
Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of proteins".
https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance
I think this is where intelligence comes into play, there is no more
simpler explanation!
Where is Ocham's razor?

Ocham's razor is not about simplicity; it is about unnecessary entities.
You can't find the razor because you yourself have thrown it out.

Post by Ron Dean
[big snip]
The truth is, information is degraded by errors, mistakes and copying.

The truth is, information is *created* by errors and mistakes in copying.

You only think you reject evolution. In truth, you don't know enough
about evolution to reject more than the word. What you reject has
nothing to do with evolution.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This
symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."

Post by Ron Dean
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50%
left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected
the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just
as well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur
in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino
acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic
earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine.

Also selenocysteine.

Post by Ernest Major
Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this originated
in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally transferred
into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid, selenocysteine, is also
incorporated into proteins from the genetic code using a kludge. This
is also not present in all organisms.
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round
this either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it
gets near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late
addition to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous
performed using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If
this is correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be
added to the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility. The availability constraint biases the
genetic code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the
addition of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the
functional range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs
non-polar, basic vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not
already found in the prior set.
People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic
code is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot
better than a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of
proteinogenic amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a
set with, for example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as
likely to be relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at
all.

[Ernest Major]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing
on the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."

Post by Ron Dean
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature,
50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked
just as well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur
in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino
acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic
earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid,
i.e. pyrolysine.

Also selenocysteine.

Mentioned 2 sentences later.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ernest Major
 Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this originated
in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally transferred
into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid, selenocysteine, is also
incorporated into proteins from the genetic code using a kludge. This
is also not present in all organisms.
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one
of your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an
oxygen atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's
proteins to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get
round this either by having means of metabolising the canavanine
before it gets near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving
the discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late
addition to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been
previous performed using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for
life.) If this is correct that would mean that amino acids and
proteins can be added to the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility. The availability constraint biases the
genetic code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the
addition of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the
functional range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs
non-polar, basic vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not
already found in the prior set.
People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic
code is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot
better than a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of
proteinogenic amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a
set with, for example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as
likely to be relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at
all.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it. This
symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern
mathematical anti-evolutionism."

Post by Ron Dean
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature, 50%
left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes selected
the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked just
as well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur
in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino
acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic
earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine.

Also selenocysteine.

Mentioned 2 sentences later.

True. I looked but I didn't see it. Getting old, I fear.

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ernest Major
 Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this originated
in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally transferred
into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid, selenocysteine, is also
incorporated into proteins from the genetic code using a kludge. This
is also not present in all organisms.
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round
this either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it
gets near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late
addition to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous
performed using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If
this is correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be
added to the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility. The availability constraint biases the
genetic code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the
addition of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the
functional range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs
non-polar, basic vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not
already found in the prior set.
People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic
code is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot
better than a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of
proteinogenic amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a
set with, for example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as
likely to be relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at
all.

[Chris Thompson]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ron Dean
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing
on the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying
it. This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar
conference from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to
evolutionary theory were presented. We refute these challenges and
discuss the historical significance of the conference in shaping
modern mathematical anti-evolutionism."

Post by Ron Dean
However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have
not been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature,
50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino
acids being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to
explain why only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what
about the 20? Or is it possible that any other set of amino acids
would have worked just as well?

The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the
500 number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which
occur in living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these
amino acids existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the
pre-biotic earth. I presume that you haven't done so.
I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by
all life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code
encode 20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life.
Some prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino
acid, i.e. pyrolysine.

Also selenocysteine.

Mentioned 2 sentences later.

True. I looked but I didn't see it. Getting old, I fear.

Ron Dean will tell you that means your entropy is increasing.

Chris
snip