To sum up

Post by MarkE
“Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information
stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This
discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that
directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm

1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for the
probability of spontaneous emergence.

2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like
evidence against life being designed.

--
alias Ernest Major

Martin Harran

2025-02-06 10:52:54 UTC

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:07:22 +0000, Ernest Major

1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for the
probability of spontaneous emergence.
2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like
evidence against life being designed.

"If the genetic code is translated incorrectly, harmful proteins can
be produced, which can lead to neurological diseases such as
Huntington's disease

[…]

The researchers discovered that out-of-frame translation happens
surprisingly frequently. In extreme cases, almost half of all the
proteins that were built, used a different reading frame or code than
the expected code. "

Somehow Mark thinks that supports the idea of an intelligent i.e.
smart designer.

MarkE

2025-02-07 06:00:43 UTC

1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for the
probability of spontaneous emergence.

I assume Davies means abiogenesis, not instantaneous formation.

The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the
improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?

Post by Ernest Major
2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like
evidence against life being designed.

JTEM

2025-02-07 18:21:32 UTC

Post by MarkE
The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the
improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?

I don't think it's a matter of probabilities. If conditions are
right, life. If conditions are wrong, no life.

Think of it like freezing water. If the conditions are right the
water freezes. And every time you replicate those exact
conditions the water freezes. But if you don't produce the
condition under which water freezes, it's never going to freeze.
There is no "Percentage" chance. The probability is always 1 or
zero.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

MarkE

2025-02-07 21:32:34 UTC

Post by JTEM

Post by MarkE
The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the
improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?

I don't think it's a matter of probabilities. If conditions are
right, life. If conditions are wrong, no life.
Think of it like freezing water. If the conditions are right the
water freezes. And every time you replicate those exact
conditions the water freezes. But if you don't produce the
condition under which water freezes, it's never going to freeze.
There is no "Percentage" chance. The probability is always 1 or
zero.

The probability with hindsight.

The assembly of simple molecules into life is not like water freezing.

MarkE

2025-02-07 22:27:44 UTC

Post by JTEM

Post by MarkE
The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the
improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?

I don't think it's a matter of probabilities. If conditions are
right, life. If conditions are wrong, no life.
Think of it like freezing water. If the conditions are right the
water freezes. And every time you replicate those exact
conditions the water freezes. But if you don't produce the
condition under which water freezes, it's never going to freeze.
There is no "Percentage" chance. The probability is always 1 or
zero.

I think that's "probability with hindsight".

See my recent post, "Revealing thought experiment".

Ernest Major

2025-02-08 12:42:46 UTC

1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for the
probability of spontaneous emergence.

I assume Davies means abiogenesis, not instantaneous formation.
The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the
improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?

It seems that at least one of us is confused. Both of your responses
appear to be non-sequiturs. Perhaps you could explain what you think the
press release shows, and the line of argument by which is supportive of
your position.

Post by Ernest Major
2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like
evidence against life being designed.

--
alias Ernest Major

MarkE

2025-02-08 13:06:39 UTC

1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for
the probability of spontaneous emergence.

I assume Davies means abiogenesis, not instantaneous formation.
The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the
improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?

That was unclear on my part. Based on your use "probability of
spontaneous emergence", I had assumed you were referring to the quote
from Paul Davies as well: "The more we unravel the biochemical
underpinnings of life, the more _improbable its spontaneous emergence_
seems.”

To reiterate as originally stated: "My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt
Improbable higher and higher."

I.e., the more we know about life, the more complex we discover it to
be. The references provided are evidence of this trend. Of course as
science progress, we gain more knowledge. Fine. My point is though, that
knowledge is revealing greater and greater complexity and intricacy in
biology.

My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

With OOL, because it refers to prebiotic assembly, i.e. pre-Darwinian
evolution, and so a greater burden is placed on random formation and any
"chemical evolution".

With Evolution, because there is more precision and more development
needed in the time available.

Post by Ernest Major
2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like
evidence against life being designed.

Mark Isaak

2025-02-15 02:53:47 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

MarkE

2025-02-15 04:14:45 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."

You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the
capability of evolution.

Do you realise that's what you're doing?

Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?

Martin Harran

2025-02-15 10:15:49 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."
You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the
capability of evolution.

I suggest you read Pro Pyd's post just today about high altitude
adaption in Tibet.

Or do you think your Intelligent Designer decided to tweak the oxygen
saturation in the blood of those particular women?

Post by MarkE
Do you realise that's what you're doing?
Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?

Mark Isaak

2025-02-23 06:19:14 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries
to minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the
challenge to designed OOL also increases.

"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."
You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the
capability of evolution.
Do you realise that's what you're doing?
Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?

I am thinking of the products of evolutionary algorithms. They get quite
complex. And no wonder, since there is nothing inherent in the
algorithms to limit complexity. On the other hand, complexity *is*
limited by the algorithms of intelligent design, since the design needs
to be simple enough for designers (and repairers and maintainers) to
understand it.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Ernest Major

2025-02-23 11:57:28 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries
to minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the
challenge to designed OOL also increases.

"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."
You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the
capability of evolution.
Do you realise that's what you're doing?
Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?

An omnipotent omniscient designer isn't limited by an ability to
comprehend the complexity. ID people get to resort to "mysterious ways
beyond human understanding".

--
alias Ernest Major

DB Cates

2025-02-23 16:03:25 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design
tries to minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up,
the challenge to designed OOL also increases.

"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."
You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the
capability of evolution.
Do you realise that's what you're doing?
Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?

I am thinking of the products of evolutionary algorithms. They get
quite complex. And no wonder, since there is nothing inherent in the
algorithms to limit complexity. On the other hand, complexity *is*
limited by the algorithms of intelligent design, since the design
needs to be simple enough for designers (and repairers and
maintainers) to understand it.

An omnipotent omniscient designer isn't limited by an ability to
comprehend the complexity. ID people get to resort to "mysterious ways
beyond human understanding".

Absolutely. Of course, that 'explanation' has the same explanatory power
as "beats me".

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

MarkE

2025-02-15 04:59:53 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

My assertion is self-evident, is it not? I.e.:

OOL: the more complex the first self-replicating entity needs to be, the
greater the challenge to its prebiotic (i.e. pre-Darwinian evolution)
formation.

Evolution: the more complex a "higher" organism, given a maximum
plausible rate of mutation, fixation and time, the greater the challenge
to its evolution.

On the other hand, your assertion that "evolution produces complexity
without the least concern" is not self-evident, and is neither an
argument nor a rebuttal. The capability of evolution to produce
complexity is, rather, a fundamental contention.

Martin Harran

2025-02-15 10:28:39 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

According to that theory, the increasing complexity in iron and steel
compounds over the last few centuries means that we can no longer
belive that they all began with iron atoms.

Post by MarkE
On the other hand, your assertion that "evolution produces complexity
without the least concern" is not self-evident, and is neither an
argument nor a rebuttal. The capability of evolution to produce
complexity is, rather, a fundamental contention.

jillery

2025-02-15 11:06:18 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

OOL: the more complex the first self-replicating entity needs to be, the
greater the challenge to its prebiotic (i.e. pre-Darwinian evolution)
formation.
Evolution: the more complex a "higher" organism, given a maximum
plausible rate of mutation, fixation and time, the greater the challenge
to its evolution.
On the other hand, your assertion that "evolution produces complexity
without the least concern" is not self-evident, and is neither an
argument nor a rebuttal. The capability of evolution to produce
complexity is, rather, a fundamental contention.

Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.

WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.

WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.

Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.

Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.

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

MarkE

2025-02-17 11:05:14 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.

Agreed, care is needed in defining complexity and its relationship to
function.

The challenge to evolution is the creation of functional complexity.
Here is a description of the ultimate manifestation of functional
complexity:

'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form
a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific
officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the
most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its
connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.'
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe

'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of
magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'

'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3 billion
synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the neocortex
range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of synapses in
the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The neocortex has the
same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100 billion. One
researcher estimates that with current technology it would take 10,000
automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections between every
neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of disk space to
store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-networks-identified-.html

Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.

However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce "that
evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of functional
complexity inside their heads"?

Ernest Major

2025-02-17 17:06:08 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.

A problem with irreducible complexity as an argument for design (apart
from being achievable by natural processes) is the lack of an objective
criterion for delimiting systems, parts and functions. Something maybe
both irreducibly complex or not irreducibly complex depending on the
choices made for the preceding. Similarly there is an issue with the
lack of an objective criterion for dividing the universe into disjoint
objects. The human brain is part of the human body; either the human is
more complex that the human brain, or the rest of the human body has
negative complexity, or complexity is an intensive rather than an
extensive property.

Another issue is defining a measure of complexity. If complexity is an
extensive property why is the elephant brain, with 3 times the number of
neurons, a more complex object than the human brain. (You could try
appealing to the size of the connectome, where there is a convenient gap
in our knowledge of the size of connectomes. I don't find it especially
plausible that human neurons have on average 3 times the number of
synapses as elephant neurons, but my intuition might be wrong on this
point.) If complexity is an intensive property then might not corvid and
psittacid brains have a higher complexity than human brains; the achieve
a surprising degree of intelligence with much smaller brains.

Post by MarkE
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of
magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3 billion
synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the neocortex
range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of synapses in
the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The neocortex has the
same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100 billion. One
researcher estimates that with current technology it would take 10,000
automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections between every
neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of disk space to
store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-
networks-identified-.html

Some organisms have deterministic cell fates. That is why Caenorhabditis
elegans was adopted as a model organism for investigating the genetic
control of development - it allowed researchers to simplify the problem
by not having to consider the effects of randomness and environmental
factors. This is not the case for humans, and I believe for the majority
of multi-cellular organisms. The human brain is self-organising, but it
doesn't self-organise to a fixed target.

Post by MarkE
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.

No.

Post by MarkE
However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce "that
evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of functional
complexity inside their heads"?

We already have. Do you have anything other than an argument from
incredulity against this?

--
alias Ernest Major

MarkE

2025-02-18 06:03:13 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.

More precisely, if an alleged case of irreducible complexity is
achievable by natural processes, it's not irreducible.

Post by Ernest Major
Another issue is defining a measure of complexity. If complexity is an
extensive property why is the elephant brain, with 3 times the number of
neurons, a more complex object than the human brain. (You could try
appealing to the size of the connectome, where there is a convenient gap
in our knowledge of the size of connectomes. I don't find it especially
plausible that human neurons have on average 3 times the number of
synapses as elephant neurons, but my intuition might be wrong on this
point.) If complexity is an intensive property then might not corvid and
psittacid brains have a higher complexity than human brains; the achieve
a surprising degree of intelligence with much smaller brains.

Agree that complexity, including "functional complexity", is difficult
to both define and quantify.

Post by MarkE
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of
magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3
billion synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the
neocortex range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of
synapses in the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The
neocortex has the same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100
billion. One researcher estimates that with current technology it
would take 10,000 automated microscopes thirty years to map the
connections between every neuron in a human brain, and 100 million
terabytes of disk space to store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-
networks-identified-.html

Post by MarkE
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.

No.

Post by MarkE
However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce
"that evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of
functional complexity inside their heads"?

We already have. Do you have anything other than an argument from
incredulity against this?

Yes, Darwinian evolution is the prevailing theory. Nevertheless, this
cuts both ways: the absolute conviction that evolution has the
capability to construct the most complex object in the known universe
can similarly be called "belief from credulity".

What do you mean by your statement "The human brain is self-organising"
Are you suggesting that it is something like unprogrammed hardware, and
it writes its own software? Or are you referring to the process of
raising and educating a child?

Martin Harran

2025-02-18 09:19:08 UTC

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:03:13 +1100, MarkE <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by MarkE
Yes, Darwinian evolution is the prevailing theory. Nevertheless, this
cuts both ways: the absolute conviction that evolution has the
capability to construct the most complex object in the known universe
can similarly be called "belief from credulity".

If "belief from credulity" means drawing conclusions based on the
available evidence rather than awe or gut feeling, then I plead
guilty.

[...]

Ernest Major

2025-02-18 11:03:55 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.

More precisely, if an alleged case of irreducible complexity is
achievable by natural processes, it's not irreducible.

That redefinition makes the argument from irreducible complexity
worthless (rather than just false). It boils down to a claim that if a
system can't have evolved if it can have evolved. The whole point of the
original argument from irreducible complexity was that it purportedly
had an objective criterion for identifying systems that couldn't have
evolved. (I'm willing to believe that Behe was sincere in thinking that
he had such a criterion, though Peter Nyikos did dent my confidence in
that opinion.) That argument was false (the axiom that irreducibly
complex systems can't evolve is not true - we grant provisionally grant
a particular choice of system, part and function and show that there are
mechanisms for such systems to evolve), but swapping it for a fallacious
(circular) argument is not an improvement.

Post by Ernest Major
Another issue is defining a measure of complexity. If complexity is an
extensive property why is the elephant brain, with 3 times the number
of neurons, a more complex object than the human brain. (You could try
appealing to the size of the connectome, where there is a convenient
gap in our knowledge of the size of connectomes. I don't find it
especially plausible that human neurons have on average 3 times the
number of synapses as elephant neurons, but my intuition might be
wrong on this point.) If complexity is an intensive property then
might not corvid and psittacid brains have a higher complexity than
human brains; the achieve a surprising degree of intelligence with
much smaller brains.

Agree that complexity, including "functional complexity", is difficult
to both define and quantify.

If you want to make an argument that evolution can't achieve something
you either need some hard objective criterion (irreducible complexity
was a failed attempt at that) or numbers for the capability of evolution
to produce "complexity" and the "complexity" of the systems under
consideration. Without either of these all you have in an argument from
incredulity.

You look at the complexity of cells and organisms and say "ooh its so
complex; it must be designed". I look at the Heath-Robinson
(Rube-Goldberg) nature of cells and organism and say "no way is that
designed". We need a means of choosing between those two responses. The
theory of evolution explains the observations; the hypothesis (being
generous) of intelligent design explains away the observations. To my
way of thinking that makes the evolution the superior explanation.

Post by MarkE
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders
of magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If
you look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains
are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized
part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an
inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3
billion synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the
neocortex range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number
of synapses in the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The
neocortex has the same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100
billion. One researcher estimates that with current technology it
would take 10,000 automated microscopes thirty years to map the
connections between every neuron in a human brain, and 100 million
terabytes of disk space to store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-
intelligence- networks-identified-.html

Some organisms have deterministic cell fates. That is why
Caenorhabditis elegans was adopted as a model organism for
investigating the genetic control of development - it allowed
researchers to simplify the problem by not having to consider the
effects of randomness and environmental factors. This is not the case
for humans, and I believe for the majority of multi-cellular
organisms. The human brain is self-organising, but it doesn't self-
organise to a fixed target.

Post by MarkE
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.

No.

Post by MarkE
However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce
"that evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of
functional complexity inside their heads"?

We already have. Do you have anything other than an argument from
incredulity against this?

I ask again; do you have anything other than an argument from
incredulity against this? One would expect that it you had you would
present it spontaneously; instead you've just ducked an invitation to
present such.

Post by MarkE
What do you mean by your statement "The human brain is self-organising"
Are you suggesting that it is something like unprogrammed hardware, and
it writes its own software? Or are you referring to the process of
raising and educating a child?

You recently mentioned structuralism in biology recently. I might be a
bit of a structuralist, though I don't see structuralism as being in
opposition to natural selection. Many natural structures (such as
planets and crystals) self organise. In cell biology we have cell
membranes and ribosomes. At a higher level we have lungs and kidneys,
and yes brains, and at a still higher level, ecosystems. I see natural
selection as acting to choose between different self-organising systems;
mutations that produce systems that don't self-organise will be selected
out.

The former is nearer to the mark. The brain makes and prunes synaptic
connections is response to environmental stimuli. Describing that as
"unprogrammed hardware writing its own software" is not the worst
metaphor. (You could draw a parallel with AlphaZero training itself to
play chess, go, shogi, ...) But the brain is not a tabula rasa. For
example I believe that the capability for language is innate, though any
particular language is learnt. But at a deeper level the brain is
hardware that assembles itself. The genome is not a blueprint; a recipe
is a better metaphor. Interactions between cells cause the cells to
organise themselves into brain structures. Even outside the environment
of the human body human cells are capable of self-organising into
structures (see the literature on organoids). In other organisms sponge
cells are capable of self-organising into sponges, and in the right
conditions in many plant species embryos spontaneously develop in callus
culture and develop into seedlings.

--
alias Ernest Major

MarkE

2025-02-18 07:19:14 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.

More precisely, if a supposed instance of irreducible complexity is
achievable by natural processes, then it's not irreducible.

Agree that complexity, including "functional complexity", is difficult
to both define and quantify.

Post by MarkE
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of
magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3
billion synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the
neocortex range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of
synapses in the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The
neocortex has the same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100
billion. One researcher estimates that with current technology it
would take 10,000 automated microscopes thirty years to map the
connections between every neuron in a human brain, and 100 million
terabytes of disk space to store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-
networks-identified-.html

Post by MarkE
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.

No.

Post by MarkE
However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce
"that evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of
functional complexity inside their heads"?

We already have. Do you have anything other than an argument from
incredulity against this?

Yes, Darwinian evolution is the prevailing theory. Nevertheless, this
cuts both ways: the deduction that evolution has the capability to
construct the most complex object in the known universe, held without
any doubt, can similarly be called "belief from credulity".

Is your statement "The human brain is self-organising" referring to
wiring through learning, i.e. the process of raising and educating a
child, etc?

Martin Harran

2025-02-18 09:15:56 UTC

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 22:05:14 +1100, MarkE <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[…]

Post by MarkE
'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form
a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific
officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the
most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its
connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.'
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what's in our head is orders of
magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3 billion
synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the neocortex
range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of synapses in
the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The neocortex has the
same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100 billion. One
researcher estimates that with current technology it would take 10,000
automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections between every
neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of disk space to
store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-networks-identified-.html
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.
However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce "that
evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of functional
complexity inside their heads"?

The question I would like to see you address is how your Intelligent
Designer might have gone about this.

The human brain indeed has unique characteristics in terms of its
ability and functions. Other species do not have those
characteristics, but they do have similar brain structures and, as
Ernest has pointed out in several examples, those brains can sometimes
be argued to be even more complex than the human one. So how do you
think your Intelligent Designer went about this? Did he play around
with various prototype brain designs on other species and then come up
with a particular design that he decided to give to humans alone?

MarkE

2025-02-18 09:37:06 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
The question I would like to see you address is how your Intelligent
Designer might have gone about this.
The human brain indeed has unique characteristics in terms of its
ability and functions. Other species do not have those
characteristics, but they do have similar brain structures and, as
Ernest has pointed out in several examples, those brains can sometimes
be argued to be even more complex than the human one. So how do you
think your Intelligent Designer went about this? Did he play around
with various prototype brain designs on other species and then come up
with a particular design that he decided to give to humans alone?

Why the hostile, mocking tone, and straw man depiction of God?

Martin Harran

2025-02-18 09:55:42 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

===========================

[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

MarkE

2025-02-18 10:41:42 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

I'm with many ID proponents who are openly Christians, but in the
context of debating the interpretation and implications of scientific
evidence, deliberately and correctly refer only to a non-specific
intelligent designer interacting with this material world from outside
of spacetime.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

Bob Casanova

2025-02-18 15:29:58 UTC

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:42 +1100, the following appeared

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

Same here.

Post by MarkE
It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

So, "The check is in the mail"?

Either you know of such evidence or you were blowing smoke.
If the former, a simple one-line cite to the evidence would
have taken less time than the two sentences above. But I
suspect it's actually the latter; simply the most recent in
a long line of such from various ID apologists.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Kestrel Clayton

2025-02-18 18:42:26 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:42 +1100, the following appeared

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

Same here.

Post by MarkE
It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

So, "The check is in the mail"?
Either you know of such evidence or you were blowing smoke.
If the former, a simple one-line cite to the evidence would
have taken less time than the two sentences above. But I
suspect it's actually the latter; simply the most recent in
a long line of such from various ID apologists.

Amazing that people are still hawking the ID scam 20 years after the
Disastrous of Defeat in Dover. I'm also not sure what the point is, in
2025, with naked Christian fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism back
in fashion for Republicans. Why obfuscate about how we can't possibly
know who the designer is or what he did when you can just say "GOD said
it! I believe it! THAT SETTLES IT!" and dismantle any institution that
dares argue?

Not only do the ID folks have nothing to sell, these days I can't
imagine who is buying.

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Kestrel Clayton
"Every normal woman must be tempted, at times, to stoke the fire,
host the black mass, and begin eating hearts." — Rose Bailey

Bob Casanova

2025-02-23 01:06:06 UTC

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:29:58 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:42 +1100, the following appeared

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

Same here.

Post by MarkE
It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

So, "The check is in the mail"?
Either you know of such evidence or you were blowing smoke.
If the former, a simple one-line cite to the evidence would
have taken less time than the two sentences above. But I
suspect it's actually the latter; simply the most recent in
a long line of such from various ID apologists.

4 days. OK; got it; you were blowing smoke. Thanks for
confirming.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Martin Harran

2025-02-18 16:59:54 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

Why do you feel the need to hide your religious beliefs; why not just
come out and talk openly about God? That seems to me a lack of
confidence in your religious beliefs or at least your ability to
convince other people.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

Martin Harran

2025-02-18 17:49:13 UTC

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:59:54 +0000, Martin Harran
[...]

Post by MarkE
I'm with many ID proponents who are openly Christians, but in the
context of debating the interpretation and implications of scientific
evidence, deliberately and correctly refer only to a non-specific
intelligent designer interacting with this material world from outside
of spacetime.

Meant to add to above that I think there is an inherent subterfuge if
not outright dishonesty in what you and your fellow ID travellers are
doing; the very last thing you would want is for somebody to find
evidence of a designer who is not the Christian God - that would
probably be even worse for you than evolution being shown to be true.

I think Christians trying to promote their beliefs using subterfuge
are acting contrary to Christian principles and, whilst they might
have some limited short-term success, they will ultimately do more
harm than good to the spreading of Christian belief. That is why I get
so annoyed with this and come across as hostile to it.

MarkE

2025-02-18 22:52:12 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

But when talking about science identifying potential inadequacy of a
naturalistic explanation, it is appropriate to posit a non-specific
agency in that context.

I can see how this might construed as deceptive, but it's actually about
disciplined argument and avoiding category errors.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

Martin Harran

2025-02-18 23:14:24 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc.

I must have missed that, can you point me to it?

Post by MarkE
Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.
But when talking about science identifying potential inadequacy of a
naturalistic explanation, it is appropriate to posit a non-specific
agency in that context.
I can see how this might construed as deceptive, but it's actually about
disciplined argument and avoiding category errors.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

MarkE

2025-02-19 21:01:51 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc.

I must have missed that, can you point me to it?

You must have missed it, but now that you know, you can be assured that
I've no problem with being upfront about this.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

Martin Harran

2025-02-20 07:09:30 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone,

Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]

Post by MarkE
and straw man depiction of God?

It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc.

I must have missed that, can you point me to it?

You must have missed it, but now that you know, you can be assured that
I've no problem with being upfront about this.

Far from reassuring me, your failure to indicate where you did so
reinforces the impression that your once again simply blowing smoke.

Post by Martin Harran
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.

It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.

Martin Harran

2025-02-20 09:24:10 UTC

[...]

Post by Martin Harran
Why do you feel the need to hide your religious beliefs; why not just
come out and talk openly about God? That seems to me a lack of
confidence in your religious beliefs or at least your ability to
convince other people.

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

[...]

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?

==========================================

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:10:27 +1100, MarkE <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by MarkE
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.
God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation.
Etc.

===========================================

That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.

Ernest Major

2025-02-20 14:44:17 UTC

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

[...]

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?
==========================================
[...]

===========================================
That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.

As a "scientific" model (or a historical account) it's completely vague;
it could cover anything from God as a cosmogen (and nothing else), i.e.
cosmological deism, to Young Earth Creationism.

--
alias Ernest Major

Martin Harran

2025-02-20 18:58:01 UTC

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:44:17 +0000, Ernest Major

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

[...]

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?
==========================================
[...]

===========================================
That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.

As a "scientific" model (or a historical account) it's completely vague;
it could cover anything from God as a cosmogen (and nothing else), i.e.
cosmological deism, to Young Earth Creationism.

The last item, "God designed all living things and spoke them into
being, either directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for
change and adaptation" sounds like a begrudging admision of evolution.

MarkE

2025-02-21 02:00:32 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:44:17 +0000, Ernest Major

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

[...]

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?
==========================================
[...]

===========================================
That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.

As a "scientific" model (or a historical account) it's completely vague;
it could cover anything from God as a cosmogen (and nothing else), i.e.
cosmological deism, to Young Earth Creationism.

I have microevolution in mind, which is demonstrable.

I'm personally very unconvinced macroevolution, but I have mainstream
Christian friends who would support theistic evolution (which encompass
macro).

Martin Harran

2025-02-21 08:39:11 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:44:17 +0000, Ernest Major

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

[...]

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?
==========================================
[...]

===========================================
That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.

As a "scientific" model (or a historical account) it's completely vague;
it could cover anything from God as a cosmogen (and nothing else), i.e.
cosmological deism, to Young Earth Creationism.

I have microevolution in mind, which is demonstrable.
I'm personally very unconvinced macroevolution, but I have mainstream
Christian friends who would support theistic evolution (which encompass
macro).

It would help to clarify your thinking if you could say where
microevolution ends and macroevolution begins. For example, do you
accept that humans are members of the ape family, all evolved from a
common ancestor, or do you think humans were created separately as a
standalone species?

MarkE

2025-02-21 03:42:06 UTC

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

[...]

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?
==========================================
[...]

===========================================
That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.

"*how* God might have created"?

Informed speculation could draw on the observed characteristics of
living things, e.g. a rich diversity of type, behaviour, size, habitat,
morphology, appearance, adaptability, diet, nature, intelligence, etc.

What might this tell us about their designer?

It seems to suggest incredible creativity - an enjoyment of creation and
pushing designs within the constraints of the material world.

It suggests an approach of exploring variations on a theme - the reuse
of designs, basic body plans etc.

What is evident is technical capability - precision engineering, radical
engineering, from DNA to dinosaurs; edge cases such as echo-location,
electric defenses, flight, metamorphosis, marine living, human abilities
and consciousness.

The inbuilt capacity for adaptation suggests an expectation of creation
developing ("multiplying and filling the earth"), and therefore with
deep analysis and foresight to design in capacity to change and adapt,
and create a richness of diversity and gradations of form and function.

Abundance is also apparent, the spectacle and delight of thriving
populations (Genesis uses the word "teem").

From Genesis 1:27: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the
image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Humans
are part of the created order, but at the same time different in
fundamental ways. Being made in God's image means the imparting of a
meaningful capacity for relationship and moral accountability with their
creator. And it results in an innate ability to enjoy and comprehend
creation; to explore it, master it, and act as secondary creators. And,
in rebellion against God, an ability and freedom harm creation and each
other.

As I've said elsewhere, my personal view is microevolution but not
macroevolution. Other Christians would also allow macroevolution. And
you know my views on OOL.

That's the living world. As for creation of space and time, matter and
energy--they're beyond the reach of my limited speculation. But again,
the scale and grandeur of the universe speaks of the power and glory of
its creator.

Martin Harran

2025-02-21 09:03:46 UTC

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

[...]

But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.

Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?
==========================================
[...]

===========================================
That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.

Do you accept that your designer has created some really bad things
like malaria, some really inefficient things like the pathway taken by
the recurrent laryngeal nerve and some rather precarious things like
the testes, arguably the most important but most sensitive part of the
body, placed in an exposed external position?

Such failures and inefficiencies are common in *human* design but they
generate serious issues when you try to portray God.as the designer.

Post by MarkE
The inbuilt capacity for adaptation suggests an expectation of creation
developing ("multiplying and filling the earth"), and therefore with
deep analysis and foresight to design in capacity to change and adapt,
and create a richness of diversity and gradations of form and function.
Abundance is also apparent, the spectacle and delight of thriving
populations (Genesis uses the word "teem").
From Genesis 1:27: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the
image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Humans
are part of the created order, but at the same time different in
fundamental ways. Being made in God's image means the imparting of a
meaningful capacity for relationship and moral accountability with their
creator. And it results in an innate ability to enjoy and comprehend
creation; to explore it, master it, and act as secondary creators. And,
in rebellion against God, an ability and freedom harm creation and each
other.
As I've said elsewhere, my personal view is microevolution but not
macroevolution. Other Christians would also allow macroevolution. And
you know my views on OOL.
That's the living world. As for creation of space and time, matter and
energy--they're beyond the reach of my limited speculation. But again,
the scale and grandeur of the universe speaks of the power and glory of
its creator.

Ernest Major

2025-02-18 11:30:52 UTC

Why the hostile, mocking tone, and straw man depiction of God?

First, if your position is that the Designer of the Intelligent Design
movement is not defined to be God, you can't legitimately describe a
speculation on the nature of the Designer to be a straw man depiction of
God; you just said that the Designer may not be God. In fact Martin's
suggestion is pretty much what I infer to be the implications of your claim.

Ray Martinez's position was absolutely no evolution, not even
microevolution, but he also defined evolution as entailing atheism. In
common with creationists in general he wasn't clear about what he
thought happened in the past to achieve the present state. However both
Burkhard and myself suspected him of being an omphalic evolutionist -
evolution occurs but God does it. (Omphalic evolutionism is the domain
specific version of occasionalism, are as I sometimes call it
Islamo-Calvinist determinism.) I had previously thought, based on your
focus on incredulity about abiogenesis that you had tacitly accepted
evolution, but your recent posts have falsified that hypothesis. They
leave you looking as if you have a position not dissimilar to that
inferred for Ray.

What do you think stops evolution from the equivalent of a chimpanzee
brain to the equivalent of a human brain, or from the equivalent of a
monkey brain to the equivalent of a chimpanzee brain, or from the
equivalent of a lemur brain to the equivalent of a monkey brain, or from
the equivalent of a tree shrew brain to the equivalent of a lemur brain,
and so on along the trajectory of increased encephalisation and brain
complexity? What particular step do you find incredible? Since I don't
see any difference between the various steps the natural assumption is
that you find all the steps incredible, which leaves me (and presumably
Martin) to infer that you hold a position something like what Martin
outlined.

Only if you assume that the Designer is God, and an omniscient God at
that, could you describe Martin's comment as mocking God. But remember
that the Intelligent Design movement tells us that it does not tell us
the identity or properties of the Designer, so you would be condemning
Martin for taking the Intelligent Design movement at its word.

--
alias Ernest Major

MarkE

2025-02-17 11:14:51 UTC

Post by MarkE
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.

Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
to designed OOL also increases.

Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.

Agreed, care is needed in defining complexity and its relationship to
function.

The challenge to evolution is the creation of functional complexity.
Here is a description of the ultimate manifestation of functional
complexity:

'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form
a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific
officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the
most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its
connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.'
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe

'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of
magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'

'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3 billion
synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the neocortex
range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of synapses in
the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The neocortex has the
same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100 billion. One
researcher estimates that with current technology it would take 10,000
automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections between every
neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of disk space to
store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-networks-identified-.html

How confident can we be to deduce "complexity therefore design" from
this? That's one question.

However, another question that needs to be asked is, how confident can
we be to deduce that "evolution can create sentient beings with a galaxy
of functional complexity inside their skulls"?

Martin Harran

2025-02-06 10:17:26 UTC

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?

[...]

Martin Harran

2025-02-08 10:39:36 UTC

On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

MarkE

2025-02-08 11:03:57 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

Martin Harran

2025-02-08 13:02:44 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

MarkE

2025-02-09 08:15:29 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

I am interested in reviewing the state of ID. I'm somewhat ambivalent
about ID myself actually, though I think it does have merit. I'll start
a new post to give the invitation visibility (i.e. paint a target on
myself).

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

Martin Harran

2025-02-09 09:52:56 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

Post by MarkE
I am interested in reviewing the state of ID. I'm somewhat ambivalent
about ID myself actually, though I think it does have merit. I'll start
a new post to give the invitation visibility (i.e. paint a target on
myself).

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

MarkE

2025-02-09 11:24:38 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

No, the review will be my case for ID's traction, but also highlighting
shortcomings that I'm aware of.

I plan to address it in a separate topic. I'm snowed under with a
weekend, so it may be a day or two.

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

Martin Harran

2025-02-15 09:19:44 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

No, the review will be my case for ID's traction, but also highlighting
shortcomings that I'm aware of.
I plan to address it in a separate topic. I'm snowed under with a
weekend, so it may be a day or two.

It's now been a week since you said you would do this and you have
posted 9 messages in the last couple of days so your busy at work
excuse is wearing a bit thin. I've seen nothing to change my original
conclusion that this claim about ID gaining traction is just something
that you would *like* to be true but it isn't.

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

MarkE

2025-02-15 10:11:49 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

No, the review will be my case for ID's traction, but also highlighting
shortcomings that I'm aware of.
I plan to address it in a separate topic. I'm snowed under with a
weekend, so it may be a day or two.

I continue the midnight sessions (budgets and board papers etc), but
take a break with simple responses here.

I want to give a reflection on ID ample time and head space. Patience.
But I appreciate your enthusiasm.

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

Martin Harran

2025-02-15 10:19:36 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

No, the review will be my case for ID's traction, but also highlighting
shortcomings that I'm aware of.
I plan to address it in a separate topic. I'm snowed under with a
weekend, so it may be a day or two.

I continue the midnight sessions (budgets and board papers etc), but
take a break with simple responses here.
I want to give a reflection on ID ample time and head space. Patience.
But I appreciate your enthusiasm.

The fact that you are needing so much time to try to find supporting
evidence should give you cause for reflection.

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

MarkE

2025-02-09 11:30:14 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

No, the review will be my case for ID's traction, but also highlighting
shortcomings as I see them.

I plan to address it in a separate subject. I'm snowed under with a
working weekend, so it may be a day or two.

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

Martin Harran

2025-02-09 12:10:50 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

No, the review will be my case for ID's traction, but also highlighting
shortcomings as I see them.

OK, that should be interesting.

Post by MarkE
I plan to address it in a separate subject. I'm snowed under with a
working weekend, so it may be a day or two.

Post by MarkE
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

Bob Casanova

2025-02-08 21:26:34 UTC

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

Martin can handle his own arguments, but I noticed that you
again failed to provide the evidence for your claim that ID
has gained traction. I'd also be interested in such
evidence, since it contradicts my own observations.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova

2025-02-11 17:58:11 UTC

On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

MarkE

2025-02-11 21:25:11 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Bob Casanova

2025-02-12 04:47:28 UTC

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

MarkE

2025-02-13 07:55:11 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

Worked all last weekend and to midnight each day this week. But even so
I do hate to disappoint my fans.

Bob Casanova

2025-02-13 22:31:47 UTC

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:55:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

Worked all last weekend and to midnight each day this week. But even so
I do hate to disappoint my fans.

"Fans"?

Cue Inigo Montoya; no, not the "prepare to die" one, the
other one.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

MarkE

2025-02-14 06:12:42 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:55:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

Worked all last weekend and to midnight each day this week. But even so
I do hate to disappoint my fans.

"Fans"?

C'mon Bob, time to come out of the closet.

Post by Bob Casanova
Cue Inigo Montoya; no, not the "prepare to die" one, the
other one.

Bob Casanova

2025-02-15 05:56:31 UTC

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:12:42 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:55:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

Worked all last weekend and to midnight each day this week. But even so
I do hate to disappoint my fans.

"Fans"?

C'mon Bob, time to come out of the closet.

I have no idea what you imagine yourself to be implying
here, but then neither do you; it's just the usual gabble.

Post by Bob Casanova
Cue Inigo Montoya; no, not the "prepare to die" one, the
other one.

Illiterate? Write for free help.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

William Hyde

2025-02-13 22:38:53 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

In approximately 1990 my local paper had a story entitled "News the
press establishment is ignoring".

High on their list was "The continuing rapid acceptance of Scientific
Creationism in the Scientific Community".

Of course, the first time I debated any creationist, circa 1975, I was
assured that scientists were coming around to the creationist view, and
that evolution would be rejected soon. Therefore, the fact that he
could not remotely defend his cause didn't matter. See?

But then, since his god was going to come back soon, circa 35 AD,
perhaps he meant that evolution would be rejected around 4000 AD.

MarkE is in the grand tradition.

William Hyde

MarkE

2025-02-14 06:11:55 UTC

Post by William Hyde

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a
disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

In approximately 1990 my local paper had a story entitled "News the
press establishment is ignoring".
High on their list was "The continuing rapid acceptance of Scientific
Creationism in the Scientific Community".
Of course, the first time I debated any creationist, circa 1975, I was
assured that scientists were coming around to the creationist view, and
that evolution would be rejected soon. Therefore, the fact that he
could not remotely defend his cause didn't matter. See?
But then, since his god was going to come back soon, circa 35 AD,
perhaps he meant that evolution would be rejected around 4000 AD.
MarkE is in the grand tradition.
William Hyde

YEC has painted itself into some corners. But it's not the end of the story.

jillery

2025-02-12 10:06:42 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Before you repeat your standard lines of reasoning, please give a
listen to PZ Myer's criticism of them way back in 2009:

**********************************
@1:10
What I thought I would do since you probably haven't heard them all is
I would give you their lecture first so I'm going to give you a
condensed version of an intelligent design creationist lecture. It'll
be very entertaining:

Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.

Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done:

Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
it's really really complicated:

Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells
they're really complicated. You just get blown away by these things
they are so amazingly complicated:

Complexity therefore design you've heard it all now.
************************************

As far as your arguments about the "Origins debate", my impression is
they are also based on complexity. So if you can't do better than
repeat the same old arguments, I would ask that spare yourself and
Harran from posting the Same Old Stuff between yourselves. Please and
thank you.

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

MarkE

2025-02-13 08:03:12 UTC

Post by jillery

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Before you repeat your standard lines of reasoning, please give a
http://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo
**********************************
@1:10
What I thought I would do since you probably haven't heard them all is
I would give you their lecture first so I'm going to give you a
condensed version of an intelligent design creationist lecture. It'll
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells
they're really complicated. You just get blown away by these things
Complexity therefore design you've heard it all now.
************************************
As far as your arguments about the "Origins debate", my impression is
they are also based on complexity. So if you can't do better than
repeat the same old arguments, I would ask that spare yourself and
Harran from posting the Same Old Stuff between yourselves. Please and
thank you.

I came across this video some time ago, and thought, as much I disagree
with PZ in many ways, he has a point. However, complexity is necessarily
a key factor--it's where you take it.

jillery

2025-02-13 11:46:45 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Before you repeat your standard lines of reasoning, please give a
http://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo
**********************************
@1:10
What I thought I would do since you probably haven't heard them all is
I would give you their lecture first so I'm going to give you a
condensed version of an intelligent design creationist lecture. It'll
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells
they're really complicated. You just get blown away by these things
Complexity therefore design you've heard it all now.
************************************
As far as your arguments about the "Origins debate", my impression is
they are also based on complexity. So if you can't do better than
repeat the same old arguments, I would ask that you spare yourself and
Harran from posting the Same Old Stuff between yourselves. Please and
thank you.

I came across this video some time ago, and thought, as much I disagree
with PZ in many ways, he has a point. However, complexity is necessarily
a key factor--it's where you take it.

No doubt you saw PZ's video many times and long ago, as I had posted
it many times. Apparently, you ignored his and my point each time
much as you do now.

In fact, you illustrate PZ's point by not taking complexity anywhere
except to repeat it ad nauseam. I know you know of lots of examples of
natural complexity; weather, shorelines, mountain horizons, clouds. I
know you know that none of these examples require guided intelligence
to explain their existence. That's one reason why Dembski et al speak
of Specified Complexity aka Complex Specified Information, where the
complexity is a necessary part of a specified function, ex. DNA.

My understanding is you and these speakers *assume* their specified
functions could not have been created by unguided natural processes,
and so base their arguments on "God of the Gaps" ignorance.
Unfortunately for them, that science doesn't know how life originated
is non sequitur to whether life was intelligently designed with a
purpose, nevermind what is that purpose.

So once again, I ask you to spare yourself and Harran from posting the
Same Old Stuff between yourselves, and by so doing illustrate nothing
more than your mindlessness and his hypocrisy.

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

MarkE

2025-02-13 20:59:35 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran

What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]

So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.

No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

Before you repeat your standard lines of reasoning, please give a
http://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo
**********************************
@1:10
What I thought I would do since you probably haven't heard them all is
I would give you their lecture first so I'm going to give you a
condensed version of an intelligent design creationist lecture. It'll
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells
they're really complicated. You just get blown away by these things
Complexity therefore design you've heard it all now.
************************************
As far as your arguments about the "Origins debate", my impression is
they are also based on complexity. So if you can't do better than
repeat the same old arguments, I would ask that you spare yourself and
Harran from posting the Same Old Stuff between yourselves. Please and
thank you.

I came across this video some time ago, and thought, as much I disagree
with PZ in many ways, he has a point. However, complexity is necessarily
a key factor--it's where you take it.

No doubt you saw PZ's video many times and long ago, as I had posted
it many times. Apparently, you ignored his and my point each time
much as you do now.
In fact, you illustrate PZ's point by not taking complexity anywhere
except to repeat it ad nauseam. I know you know of lots of examples of
natural complexity; weather, shorelines, mountain horizons, clouds. I
know you know that none of these examples require guided intelligence
to explain their existence. That's one reason why Dembski et al speak
of Specified Complexity aka Complex Specified Information, where the
complexity is a necessary part of a specified function, ex. DNA.
My understanding is you and these speakers *assume* their specified
functions could not have been created by unguided natural processes,
and so base their arguments on "God of the Gaps" ignorance.
Unfortunately for them, that science doesn't know how life originated
is non sequitur to whether life was intelligently designed with a
purpose, nevermind what is that purpose.
So once again, I ask you to spare yourself and Harran from posting the
Same Old Stuff between yourselves, and by so doing illustrate nothing
more than your mindlessness and his hypocrisy.

Always a joy talking to you.

jillery

2025-02-14 12:11:15 UTC

Post by MarkE
Always a joy talking to you.

Try it some time, if only for the novelty of the experience.

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

Martin Harran

2025-02-14 09:48:15 UTC

[...]

Post by jillery
So if you can't do better than
repeat the same old arguments, I would ask that spare yourself and
Harran from posting the Same Old Stuff between yourselves.

Jillery seems rather obsessed with someone who has no interest in
engaging with her. I guess unrequited love is a hard thing to shake
off.

Post by MarkE
I came across this video some time ago, and thought, as much I disagree
with PZ in many ways, he has a point. However, complexity is necessarily
a key factor--it's where you take it.

jillery

2025-02-14 12:13:24 UTC

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:48:15 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by jillery
So if you can't do better than
repeat the same old arguments, I would ask that spare yourself and
Harran from posting the Same Old Stuff between yourselves.

Jillery seems rather obsessed with someone who has no interest in
engaging with her. I guess unrequited love is a hard thing to shake
off.

Harran seems rather obsessed with projecting his hypocrisy onto
Jillery.

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

Martin Harran

2025-02-15 10:29:52 UTC

In an idle moment I decided to use NovaBB to check just how much
Jillery has been trying to catch my attention recently. A lot more
than I thought, as it turns out, but this one in the 'Paradoxes'
thread last week gave me a good chuckle:

======================================

I think Jillery is lonely in my killfile. No other regular is in it
except Nando and he doesn't seem to be around any more.

Jillery wrote:
Here's yet another example of Harran bragging about the size of his
killfile; typical male compensation. If he wasn't willfully stupid he
would go KF himself.

=======================================

First time I've ever heard of somebody being accused of male
compensation for bragging about how *small* something is, ROFL

jillery

2025-02-15 11:18:12 UTC

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:29:52 +0000, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
In an idle moment I decided to use NovaBB to check just how much
Jillery has been trying to catch my attention recently. A lot more
than I thought, as it turns out, but this one in the 'Paradoxes'
======================================

I think Jillery is lonely in my killfile. No other regular is in it
except Nando and he doesn't seem to be around any more.

Here's yet another example of Harran bragging about the size of his
killfile; typical male compensation. If he wasn't willfully stupid he
would go KF himself.
=======================================
First time I've ever heard of somebody being accused of male
compensation for bragging about how *small* something is, ROFL

Here's yet another example of Harran going out of his way to work
around his own killfile. Whether obsession, hypocrisy, or willful
stupidity, the result is the same.

As for the size of Harran's "male compensation", jillery will take him
at his word.

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

Kerr-Mudd, John

2025-02-15 14:57:53 UTC

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:18:12 -0500

Post by jillery
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:29:52 +0000, Martin Harran

I think Jillery is lonely in my killfile. No other regular is in it
except Nando and he doesn't seem to be around any more.

Here's yet another example of Harran going out of his way to work
around his own killfile. Whether obsession, hypocrisy, or willful
stupidity, the result is the same.
As for the size of Harran's "male compensation", jillery will take him
at his word.

I'm sorry, is this the Abuse room? I only came here for an
argument. </MP>

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

jillery

2025-02-16 09:37:00 UTC

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:57:53 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:18:12 -0500

Post by jillery
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:29:52 +0000, Martin Harran

I think Jillery is lonely in my killfile. No other regular is in it
except Nando and he doesn't seem to be around any more.

Here's yet another example of Harran going out of his way to work
around his own killfile. Whether obsession, hypocrisy, or willful
stupidity, the result is the same.
As for the size of Harran's "male compensation", jillery will take him
at his word.

I'm sorry, is this the Abuse room? I only came here for an
argument. </MP>

Take it up with the inmate abusing himself.

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

JTEM

2025-02-06 16:24:41 UTC

Post by MarkE
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?

If you ask me, which you never would, the debate has long switched
way from evolution-v-creation to Panspermia-v-Abiogenesis.

Which is weird because it's VERY testable, this Pansermia, and at
a lower lever has already been tested (and passed). Life has
traveled to the moon and back -- stowaway microbial life, not the
astronauts -- it's been found on the outside of our orbital tech...
life CAN survive the journey into space. This much has already been
confirmed. And although this is a long way from "Proving" Panspermia
it is certainly consistent with it.

I'd like to see it taken to the next level. I'd like to see the
circumstances where life would be ejected into space replicated, and
I'd like to see the circumstances where it would plunge to the
surface replicated. Maybe on Mars?

The danger is "Contaminating" a foreign body with earth life, especially
if we had not yet ruled out indigenous life...

Another experiment would be to fly collectors with various growth
mediums around our solar system, maybe send a few voyager-like
towards distant galaxies.

The beauty of this is that you don't necessarily need a return trip!
You can have all manner of sensors, all the cameras and beam what
you're collecting back to earth.

Life tends to produce gases, life tends to produce heat... we can
even be monitoring the composition of the medium, because life has
a habit of altering THAT!

Would it be expensive?

No. Not at all. The problem was never money, it was always (and
remains) one of priorities. Our corrupt government would rather
risk nuclear war, paying for other people's wars with superpowers,
than answer the fundamental questions of life.

...Biden threw away more than $9 billion on the Palestinians
when numerous experts assure us that they are willing to hate us
for free.

South Africa is in the G20! They're one of the richest 20 economies
on the planet, and we're still gifting them hundreds of millions of
dollars...

Our priorities are *Whacked!*

Let Elon cut his $2 trillion from the budget, and then let's pump
at least $100 billion of that into science.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

MarkE

2025-02-07 05:36:24 UTC

Post by JTEM

Post by MarkE
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?

If you ask me, which you never would, the debate has long switched
way from evolution-v-creation to Panspermia-v-Abiogenesis.
Which is weird because it's VERY testable, this Pansermia, and at
a lower lever has already been tested (and passed). Life has
traveled to the moon and back -- stowaway microbial life, not the
astronauts -- it's been found on the outside of our orbital tech...
life CAN survive the journey into space. This much has already been
confirmed. And although this is a long way from "Proving" Panspermia
it is certainly consistent with it.
I'd like to see it taken to the next level. I'd like to see the
circumstances where life would be ejected into space replicated, and
I'd like to see the circumstances where it would plunge to the
surface replicated. Maybe on Mars?
The danger is "Contaminating" a foreign body with earth life, especially
if we had not yet ruled out indigenous life...
Another experiment would be to fly collectors with various growth
mediums around our solar system, maybe send a few voyager-like
towards distant galaxies.
The beauty of this is that you don't necessarily need a return trip!
You can have all manner of sensors, all the cameras and beam what
you're collecting back to earth.
Life tends to produce gases, life tends to produce heat... we can
even be monitoring the composition of the medium, because life has
a habit of altering THAT!
Would it be expensive?
No. Not at all. The problem was never money, it was always (and
remains) one of priorities. Our corrupt government would rather
risk nuclear war, paying for other people's wars with superpowers,
than answer the fundamental questions of life.
...Biden threw away more than $9 billion on the Palestinians
when numerous experts assure us that they are willing to hate us
for free.
South Africa is in the G20! They're one of the richest 20 economies
on the planet, and we're still gifting them hundreds of millions of
dollars...
Our priorities are *Whacked!*
Let Elon cut his $2 trillion from the budget, and then let's pump
at least $100 billion of that into science.

Panspermia buys you more probabilistic resources to crack the OOL
problem, which leads to these questions:
- Is that needed?
- Is it enough?
- Is interplanetary/interstellar transport plausible?

Do you think panspermia is having a resurgence with discoveries of
organic compounds in space and studies of extremophiles? Or because of
my first point?

RonO

2025-02-06 17:05:52 UTC

Post by MarkE
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt
Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real. I would add to this arguments relating to
first-cause, fine-tuning, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
Yes, I am aware of the general disagreement here with my position.
Time will tell...

Time has already told. One of your references is from 2006, and what
has the ID scam done with it for the last 2 decades? You have a
reference fro 2022 and 2019, but the rest are all older than 2017. The
ID scam is just as dead as when those papers were written. Even the
2006 paper was published 4 years after the ID perps started running the
bait and switch scam on creationist rubes instead of giving them their
ID science. Zero progress has been made for the ID scam since the bait
and switch started to go down, and they are still running the bait and
switch scam. All ID has been is bait to force their obfuscation and
denial switch scam onto the creationist rubes for over two decades.

You should likely try to get into a discussion with Denton and Behe.
Both have realized that Biblical creationism is dead, so like you, all
they are focusing on is the denial. Denton realizes that the denial is
senseless, and does not care of life originated on this planet by
natural causes. The Bible is obviously wrong, so there is no point in
denying something that doesn't matter. However life arose on this
planet it has obviously evolved for billions of years into what we have
today. Even if someone figures out a likely scenario for the origin of
life on this planet over 3 billion years ago Denton's creationist
beliefs will remain intact. He no longer cares how life originated on
this planet, because however it occurred it will not be Biblical.
Nature is not Biblical. Christians that had a knowledge of nature have
realized that for centuries.

We just had an argument about geocentrism, and the church fathers were
not flat earthers. A Greek had estimated the circumference of the earth
by physical measurments a couple of centuries before Christ was born.
They were all round earth geocentrists. Kepler had to give up on the
last vestiges of the firmament and his crystal spheres models when he
determined that the orbits of the planets were elliptical. Newton
pretty much destroyed the geocentric notions, and he was born the same
year that Galileo died under house arrest. The Biblical cosmology and
creation myth has been determined to be metaphorical. It does not
reflect what nature actually is.

Science is just the study of nature, and Christians who are scientists
have realized that the Bible cannot be taken literally for a very long
time. Centuries ago some may have wanted to study nature to demonstrate
the Biblical creation, but that faded out by around Darwin's time. All
those natural theologists failed to support their biblical notions, but
some of them did contribute to an understanding of nature as it actually
exists.

So denial is stupid and pointless at this time. You really should have
a discussion with Denton before he dies. Even if life arose on this
planet by natural mechanisms, your existing faith in creationism will
not end. If it mattered people would have stopped being creationists
when the world was found to not be flat, and that there was no firmament
above the earth for some god to open up and let the rain fall through as
the Bible claims.

Ron Okimoto

Post by MarkE
_______
[1] Examples of ongoing upward revisions as to the complexity of life
"The more we unravel the biochemical underpinnings of life, the more
improbable its spontaneous emergence seems.”
Paul Davies – The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life
“Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information
stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This
discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that
directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
“DNA is life's blueprint? No, there's far more to it than that Much of
we thought we knew about the genome is proving too simplistic, show The
Deeper Genome and The Developing Genome. New metaphors, anyone?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-
blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
“Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the
genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed
codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—
messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.” In addition,
this week the large international FANTOM project published 16 studies
that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are
triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of
genetic complexity.”
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new-studies-reveal-higher-levels-of-genetic-
complexity
“According to Neo-Darwinian theory, major evolutionary changes occur as
a result of the selection of random, fortuitous genetic mutations over
time. However, some researchers say this theory does not satisfactorily
account for the appearance of radically different life forms and their
rich complexity, particularly that observed in vertebrates like humans.”
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/related-reading
“Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the
literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate
morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently
an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down
(e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered
here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542
“New research published in 2017 has discovered that the tail system is
far more complex than thought 50 years ago. The front design is vital to
transmit information to distant parts of the tail to enable it to
function as an effective unit for steering and propelling the sperm to
its end goal.[i] The system works by complex elasto-hydrodynamics that
we can only briefly outline here. Each tail is programmed to produce
slightly different movements in order for the sperm to reach the egg.”
http://www.theoriginoflife.net/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=628:sperm-tail-is-far-more-complex-
than-thought&catid=81&Itemid=108
“Recent studies have identified many exceptions to the widely held view
that signal sequences are simple, degenerate and interchangeable.
Growing evidence indicates that signal sequences contain information
that specifies the choice of targeting pathway, the efficiency of
translocation, the timing of cleavage and even postcleavage functions.
As a consequence, signal sequences can have important roles in
modulating protein biogenesis.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919958
This article discusses how defining life biochemically is becoming
increasingly complex due to new discoveries that challenge traditional
boundaries. It argues that as we learn more about prebiotic chemistry
and extremophiles, the criteria for life become harder to pin down. This
evolving understanding highlights gaps in our knowledge of abiogenesis
and may require rethinking what constitutes life. It emphasizes the
interplay between known biochemical pathways and emerging, unexpected ones.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0814?
utm_source=chatgpt.com

Kerr-Mudd, John

2025-02-07 14:56:16 UTC

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100

[It's complicated, and we don't understand it yet]

So, Sure, a god made it hard to understand.

Sorry, if God was a Proper Designer a cheaper design would be
simpler.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

jillery

2025-02-19 12:22:06 UTC

Since this point has become a bone of contention among some posters,
it would be helpful if you clarified exactly what you meant by "ID has
gained and sustained traction". Do you believe ID has done so among
scientists? Or among the general U.S. population? If the latter,
that is my impression also. It is part and parcel of the larger
movement which has melded distrust of science and scientists in with
reactionary politics and populist religious movements. If you ever
get back to this point, thank you in advance for taking some time to
answer my question.

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

Kerr-Mudd, John

2025-02-19 17:11:53 UTC