From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 3/11/25 11:47 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 12/03/2025 11:09 am, LDagget wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:18:00 +0000, MarkE wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 11/03/2025 5:44 pm, LDagget wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 5:30:52 +0000, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 11/03/2025 5:30 am, LDagget wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 4:34:30 +0000, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Does the burden of proof for these hypotheses rest exclusively   
   >>>>>>> with ID?   
   >>>>>>> Not at all. Naturalism, if being intellectually curious, honest, and   
   >>>>>>> open-minded, will ask the same questions and seek to answer them.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You assertions (it's vainglorious to promote them as hypotheses) are   
   >>>>>> rooted in nonsensical presumptions. Why would "solution space"   
   >>>>>> need to be fully traversed? A sensible person would have considered   
   >>>>>> 'adequately traversed' and then followed that up with an analysis   
   >>>>>> of what would be adequate. But you chose FULLY. It's beyond   
   >>>>>> amateurish.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That biological evolution will never get around to testing some   
   >>>>>> potential   
   >>>>>> genomes is one of those trivial things. You can work out the math on   
   >>>>>> the number of potential genomes and the number of atoms in the   
   >>>>>> universe   
   >>>>>> and figure out that they won't all wind up in some fledgling organism   
   >>>>>> asking for a try out. And so what? It doesn't advance a sensible   
   >>>>>> point.   
   >>>>>> You aren't advancing a remotely sensible notion, much less a   
   >>>>>> hypothesis.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Now as to your assertion about "intelligent design" being able to   
   >>>>>> somehow consider all the possibilities, I don't think so. Tell me how   
   >>>>>> you would model all the possible permutations of a yeast sized   
   >>>>>> genome.   
   >>>>>> All of them. And that's not about just flashing permutations of ATCG   
   >>>>>> into memory, that's running a simulation on each. So your   
   >>>>>> assertion ---   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>  ... Again, this   
   >>>>>>> constraint does not apply to intelligent design.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> --- is trivially false (on top of being proposed to follow a   
   >>>>>> foolish premise).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Why would you expect people to follow you down a poorly conceived   
   >>>>>> speculation that is absolutely full of ill-informed speculations   
   >>>>>> that pile on top of obviously flawed premises? Moreover, why   
   >>>>>> don't you apply an internal editor to weed out foolish ideas   
   >>>>>> before you post them?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> LD, your post may be a personal best in terms of count of overblown   
   >>>>> adjectives, insults, and misconceived assertions. But don't let that   
   >>>>> allow you to become complacent.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You can't expect too much science in response to a post that had   
   >>>> none to respond to. And yet, my response hit directly at the flaws   
   >>>> in your assertions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Suggesting that evolution HAS to explore ALL available search space   
   >>>> is simultaneously absurd and unnecessary. And yet you suggested that   
   >>>> very thing. And now, you deflect when that defect is laid at   
   >>>> your feet. Anybody reading this knows how to interpret that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Here's a review of what I said:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> You are getting revisionist here. Your over-arching premise is that   
   >> current life exhibits complexity that is inaccessible to biological   
   >> evolution. To support that, you're going on about how evolution can't   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)