[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> Macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution.  We just had a   
   >> discussion as to whether Neanderthals were a different species.  There   
   >> are physical differences, but it is a matter of opinion as to how much   
   >> is enough to make that claim.  Most of their DNA split off from modern   
   >> humans 800,000 years ago.  They were more closely related to modern   
   >> humans than that because some Homo left Africa around 500,000 years   
   >> ago and got absorbed by the Neanderthals, so it makes Neanderthals   
   >> more closely related to modern humans than are Denisovans.  When has   
   >> enough micro evolution occurred in order to call it macro evolution?   
   >   
   > Many creationists accept microevolution (probably a majority?), e.g.   
   > Darwin's finches. This is the standard ID position.   
      
   The denial is just stupid at this time.  Your continued support for the   
   ID scam creationist denial is just a dishonest manifestation of your   
   desire to support your religious beliefs with something that is never   
   going to support those religious beliefs.  No matter how the diversity   
   of life came into being it was not Biblical.  That is the end of that story.   
      
   The standard position goes way beyond Darwin's finches.  The AIG has   
   ambulocetus on their Ark.  In their museum they claim that all cat kinds   
   evolved from one original pair of cats that were on the Ark even the   
   sabre toothed monsters of the ice age that occurred after the flood.   
   These lineages of cats are as divergent as humans are to orangutans.   
   humans are in the great ape kind.  Dog kind is just as divergent.   
   Biblical creationist have made their decision about how much micro   
   evolution can occur and it makes humans into the great ape kind.  Just   
   as Behe has no issues with humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor.   
   The genetic distance between chimps and humans is well within the   
   genetic distance required for cat and dog kind.   
      
   How much micro evolution is too much?   
      
   >   
   > Therefore, you're begging the question by asserting as fact that   
   > macroevolution is essentially microevolution + time.   
      
   The cat and dog kinds requires macro evolution (species level) to just   
   be a lot of micro evolution.   
      
   All the existing species could not have fit onto the Ark and be fed and   
   cared for, for a year by 8 people.  The AIG even want extinct kinds on   
   the Ark, and they just claim that they did not survive or evolved into   
   something else.  Whales have the breath of life, but they did not make   
   it onto the Ark, but the AIG think that ambulocetus was on the Ark.   
   Ambulocetus is the four legged cetacean (the walking whale).   
      
   >   
   > Nothing to see here folks.   
      
   That describes your argument.  It is the reason that you have to be so   
   dishonest in your support for the ID scam.  Decades of willful ignorance   
   is responsible in your case.  You have no excuse.  You watched all this   
   happen, and you just refused to understand what was going on when it was   
   happening.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The issue though is not what fraction of the possible protein space   
   >>>>> life has explored, but rather how explorable is it? E.g. is it   
   >>>>> sparse plains with occasional local maxima, or is it a rugged   
   >>>>> terrain of endless valleys and ridges? In either case, the maxima   
   >>>>> will be mostly undiscoverable to incremental search relying on   
   >>>>> incremental improvements each conferring survival advantage   
   >>>>> sufficient to drive the associated mutation to fixation in the   
   >>>>> population.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Your adaptive immune system would not work if the search parameters   
   >>>> were what you want them to be.  Biological evolution by descent with   
   >>>> modification works because the space that needs to be searched is   
   >>>> minimal and within what is possible.  Really, new antibodies that   
   >>>> bind specific antigens would not be routinely selected for by an   
   >>>> immune response if the search parameters were too distant from the   
   >>>> existing protein sequences.  If you look up the abzyme work where   
   >>>> they use the adaptive immune system to evolve new enzymatic activity   
   >>>> you will find that they have found that less than 10 changes in the   
   >>>> antibody sequence can produce the new enzymatic activity that was   
   >>>> selected for.  It wasn't just any enzymatic activity, but the one   
   >>>> that they were selecting for.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The paper that you put up trying to claim that too many new genes   
   >>>> needed to be produced to evolve multicellular animals should have   
   >>>> told you that very little protein space seems to have been needed to   
   >>>> be searched. Those thousands of new genes evolved after a basic set   
   >>>> of genes had already evolved, and they evolved over a billion year   
   >>>> period before the Cambrian explosion.  The initial gene set had been   
   >>>> evolving for over 2 billion years to produce that Eukaryotic gene   
   >>>> set.  It looked like nearly all the new genes that evolved within   
   >>>> the billion year period before the Cambrian explosion had evolved   
   >>>> from an existing gene.  You should have seen that in their tables of   
   >>>> the origins of the new genes.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It just turns out that very little protein space has had to be   
   >>>> tested to get to where we are now.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The way to and up countless Mount Improbables need to be largely   
   >>>>> smooth and monotonically increasing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The mount improbables are only in your head.  What exists are just   
   >>>> additions to what had already existed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I realise too that this not a settled question, and in some   
   >>>>> instances a random polymer can be effecively to function, e.g.   
   >>>>> https:// journals.plos.org/plosone/article?   
   >>>>> id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000096&utm_source=chatgpt.com   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The likely reason that nearly all new genes have evolved from   
   >>>> existing genes is that just a random sequence of amino acids will   
   >>>> fold up and could have some function, but most random sequences do   
   >>>> not efficiently produce the same structure.  It can take time to   
   >>>> fold up, and the sequence might not fold up into the same structure   
   >>>> every time.  De novo coding sequence that produces a new protein has   
   >>>> to go through a selective process where the sequence needs to   
   >>>> further evolve so that it will efficiently fold up into its   
   >>>> functional structure.  Genes that have existed for billions of years   
   >>>> already fold up efficiently, and it turns out that just changing the   
   >>>> sequence a little can produce a new function, so we end up with   
   >>>> related gene families.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is even some stability issues with existing proteins, and   
   >>>> chaperone proteins have evolved to help them maintain the shape they   
   >>>> need to be in in order to function.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is just how life has adapted to reality.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ID posits a lawlike conservation of information, which I find   
   >>>>>>> intuitively appealing, but Dembski's efforts to formally define   
   >>>>>>> this have yet to land it seems.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)