From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 3/7/25 8:34 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 7/03/2025 9:29 pm, Ernest Major wrote:   
   >> On 06/03/2025 00:45, MarkE wrote:   
   >>> On 5/03/2025 3:31 pm, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine, adapt   
   >>>> and create the “appearance of design”? Yes: the mechanism itself of   
   >>>> “differential reproductive success” has intrinsic limitations,   
   >>>> whatever it may be able to achieve, and this is further constrained   
   >>>> by finite time and population sizes.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>> Martin, let's stay on topic. Would you agree that there are limits to   
   >>> NS as described, which lead to an upper limit to functional   
   >>> complexity in living things?   
   >>>   
   >>> How these limits might be determined is a separate issue, but the   
   >>> first step is establishing this premise.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> First, natural selection is not the only evolutionary process. Even if   
   >> one evolutionary process is not capable of achieving something that   
   >> doesn't mean that evolutionary processes in toto are not capable of   
   >> achieving that.   
   >   
   > Natural selection is the *only* naturalistic means capable of increasing   
   > functional complexity and genetic information.   
   >   
   > All other factors have only a shuffling/randomising effect. In every   
   > case, NS is required to pick from the many resulting permutations the   
   > rare chance improvements.   
   >   
   > Without the action of NS, all biological systems are degrading over time.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Second, you've changed the question. Evolutionary processes have   
   >> limitations, but those limitations need not be on the degree of   
   >> functional complexity achievable. Evolution cannot produce living   
   >> organisms that can't exist in the universe. (You could quibble about   
   >> lethal mutations, recessives, etc., but I hope you can perceive the   
   >> intent of my phrasing; for example, I very much doubt that evolution   
   >> could result in an organism with a volume measured in cubic light years.)   
   >>   
   >> Applying this to functional complexity, physical limits on how big an   
   >> organism can be, and how small details can be, do pose a limit on how   
   >> much functional complexity can be packed into an organism. But such a   
   >> limit doesn't help you - humans are clearly capable of existing in   
   >> this universe, so aren't precluded by that limit. You need a process   
   >> limitation, not a physical limitation; I don't find it obvious that   
   >> there is a process limitation that applies here.   
   >>   
   >> You say that the first step is establishing the premise. That is your   
   >> job.   
   >>   
   >> That there are things that evolution cannot achieve (a classic example   
   >> is the wheel, though even that is not unimaginable) doesn't not mean   
   >> that evolution cannot achieve things that already exist; one of the   
   >> reasons that ID is not science is it's lack of interest in accounting   
   >> for the voluminous evidence that evolution has achieved the current   
   >> biosphere.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The limits of NS are not simply due to physically possible organisms.   
   > It's much tighter constraint. The mechanism of "differential   
   > reproductive success" is a blunt instrument, rightly described as   
   > explaining the survival but not arrival of the fittest.   
      
   None of which is relevant to the real world.   
      
   > To elaborate my hypotheses (not proofs):   
   >   
   > 1. NS, along with any other naturalistic mechanisms, do not have the   
   > logical capacity to fully traverse the solution space, regardless of   
   > time available. Some (many) areas of the fitness landscape will be   
   > islands, local maxima, inaccessible via gradualistic pathways (e.g.   
   > monotonically increasing fitness functions). These are however   
   > accessible to intelligent design.   
   >   
   > 2. The time/material resources of the universe allow exploration of only   
   > a small fraction of even the accessible solutions. Again, this   
   > constraint does not apply to intelligent design.   
      
   Okay, now how do you test them?   
      
   Keep in mind that they have already been tested, which is a major reason   
   why evolution is the accepted explanation for diversity.  The other   
   reason is that nobody has come up with another hypothesis to explain   
   diversity.  No, "intelligent design" is not a hypothesis until you say   
   how it works.   
      
   > Does the burden of proof for these hypotheses rest exclusively with ID?   
      
   Yes.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)