From: me22over7@gmail.com
On 23/02/2026 2:57 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>
>
>>>> That is transparently begging the question. The primary purpose of
>>>> talk.origins is to debate origins,
>>>
>>> Actually, not debate, but debunk pseudoscientific ideas about life's
>>> history and diversity like "young earth" creationism, Intelligent
>>> Design, and flood geology.
>>
>> Excellent. I'm here to debunk:
>> - origin-of-life hand-waving hypotheses
>
> Which is good as far as that goes, as long as you don't try to replace
> them with the ultimate hand-waving called "God did it"
>
>> - macroevolution just-so stories
>
> Not a problem there, as long as you're not contending that all
> macroevolutionary scenarios are "just-so stories." Rather you should
> understand that those are scenarios often rest on very firm evidence.
>
>> - universe from a quantum fluctuation
>
> I think decay from a false vacuum to a lower-level "true" vacuum is
> the favored hypothesis these days.
>
>> - fine-tuning as not-a-problem
>
> What would you do if a Theory of Everything were finally discovered,
> and it show that fine-tuning was inevitable?
>
>> - multiverse solves probabilistic problems
>
> What probabilistic problems does it supposedly fail to solve?
Fine-tuning, low-entropy initial conditions, initial conditions of
inflation, initial functional polymer sequences.
>
>> - etc
>
> Just don't get stuck wallowing in creationism as you study these
> questions.
>
>>>
>>>> including the *question* of
>>>> evolution. Are you in the wrong forum then?
>>>>
>>>> And you know your statements are an oversimplification. You know that
>>>> the vast majority of creationists accept some degree of microevolution
>>>> and adaptation. You know that you've deliberately conflated micro and
>>>> macroevolution.
>>>>
>>>> And you know doing this is not valid. Either that, or you don't
>>>> understand the terms and logic of this debate.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, argue that macroevolution = microevolution + time, or whatever.
>>>> But don't pretend that they are the same thing, and don't assert that
>>>> the argument is settled. It is not.
>>>
>>> It is settled. Both macroevolution and microevolution are supported
>>> by an overwhelming amount of evidence. For example, we have
>>> indications that the entire vertebrate genome has been duplicated a
>>> couple of times.
>>>
>>> The only way this observation can be explained is by common descent of
>>> all of the vertebrates involved, since there's no reason for God to
>>> leave evidence for events that didn't occur.
>>>
>>> Nor could we expect the two genome duplications to occur again and
>>> again separately in the various vertebrate evolutionary lineages.
>>>
>>>> Instead, address the science:
>>>>
>>>> "more contingent on low-probability historical events"
>>>>
>>>> "The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that chance
>>>> emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than optimization
>>>> by natural selection."
>>>>
>>>> "is likely to result from chance events rather than natural selection."
>>>>
>>>> "We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too
>>>> much."
>>>>
>>>> It looks like your luck is running out.
>>>
>>> Your quotes don't actually say that.
>>>
>>
>> I invite you to address the science I've referenced here.
>
> I invite you to address the concept of whole-genome duplication (WGD)
> I mentioned above. And of course recall that ID "theory" has long
> since been demolished by those who've investigated it.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
