From Newsgroup: talk.origins

Evidence is emerging that Dawkins' "Mt Improbable" is not Mt Fuji but
rather "rugged in all directions" [1]. Neat textbook depictions give way
to the reality of a "lack of viable evolutionary pathways among the
major optima."

Beneficial mutations do not work together, rather, "individually
beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to
ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

This is at the molecular level with an empirically determined ribozyme
fitness landscape. The paper's conclusion?

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events rather
than natural selection."

An appeal to chance of this magnitude is a deal-breaker: "We can accept
a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much." (The
Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins)

A similar situation applies for proteins: "...an emerging picture of
pervasive epistasis" within proteins [2].

"Both types of interaction are rampant, but specific epistasis has
stronger effects on the rate and outcomes of evolution, because it
imposes stricter constraints and modulates evolutionary potential more dramatically; it therefore makes evolution more contingent on
low-probability historical events..."

Note the "*more contingent on low-probability historical events*".

While selection acts on the phenotype as a whole, molecular evolution underlies the process.

My prediction: this "emerging picture" will continue to build as
evidence against a foundation of Darwinian evolution.

_______

[1] Mapping a Systematic Ribozyme Fitness Landscape Reveals a Frustrated Evolutionary Network for Self-Aminoacylating RNA https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b13298

"...optimization of activity over the entire landscape would be
frustrated by large valleys of low activity."

"Our results show that the experimentally determined ribozyme activity landscape exhibits a degree of frustration, as individually beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

"...the inability to traverse the landscape globally corresponds to an inability to restructure the ribozyme without losing activity."

"The ruggedness of the empirically determined ribozyme fitness landscape reported here can be described by the Rough Mt. Fuji model, which is a combination of a smooth 'Mt. Fuji' landscape and the random
House-of-Cards landscape...we suggest that the major [random]
House-of-Cards character found implies a substantial level of
frustration, consistent with the lack of viable evolutionary pathways
among the major optima."

"The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that chance emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than optimization
by natural selection."

"It should be noted that mechanisms that favor greater genetic
diversity, such as recombination, gene duplication, or epistasis among
genes, could enable crossing of fitness valleys."

That is, a familiar mandatory positive spin, but followed by their real conclusion:

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events rather
than natural selection."

_______

[2] Epistasis in protein evolution
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26833806/

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 2/22/2026 12:32 AM, MarkE wrote:

Evidence is emerging that Dawkins' "Mt Improbable" is not Mt Fuji but
rather "rugged in all directions" [1]. Neat textbook depictions give way
to the reality of a "lack of viable evolutionary pathways among the
major optima."

Beneficial mutations do not work together, rather, "individually
beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to
ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

This is at the molecular level with an empirically determined ribozyme fitness landscape. The paper's conclusion?

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events rather
than natural selection."

An appeal to chance of this magnitude is a deal-breaker: "We can accept
a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much." (The
Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins)

A similar situation applies for proteins: "...an emerging picture of pervasive epistasis" within proteins [2].

"Both types of interaction are rampant, but specific epistasis has
stronger effects on the rate and outcomes of evolution, because it
imposes stricter constraints and modulates evolutionary potential more dramatically; it therefore makes evolution more contingent on low- probability historical events..."

Note the "*more contingent on low-probability historical events*".

While selection acts on the phenotype as a whole, molecular evolution underlies the process.

My prediction: this "emerging picture" will continue to build as
evidence against a foundation of Darwinian evolution.

_______

[1] Mapping a Systematic Ribozyme Fitness Landscape Reveals a Frustrated Evolutionary Network for Self-Aminoacylating RNA https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b13298

"...optimization of activity over the entire landscape would be
frustrated by large valleys of low activity."

"Our results show that the experimentally determined ribozyme activity landscape exhibits a degree of frustration, as individually beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

"...the inability to traverse the landscape globally corresponds to an inability to restructure the ribozyme without losing activity."

"The ruggedness of the empirically determined ribozyme fitness landscape reported here can be described by the Rough Mt. Fuji model, which is a combination of a smooth 'Mt. Fuji' landscape and the random House-of-
Cards landscape...we suggest that the major [random] House-of-Cards character found implies a substantial level of frustration, consistent
with the lack of viable evolutionary pathways among the major optima."

"The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that chance emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than optimization
by natural selection."

"It should be noted that mechanisms that favor greater genetic
diversity, such as recombination, gene duplication, or epistasis among genes, could enable crossing of fitness valleys."

That is, a familiar mandatory positive spin, but followed by their real conclusion:

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events rather
than natural selection."

_______

[2] Epistasis in protein evolution
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26833806/

And Bumble Bees can't fly.

Evolution by natural selection has been documented. It happens and is happening. You have to stop denying reality. You have to be a nut job
to deny that evolution by natural selection has happened and is
currently happening.

The reason to believe put up their recreation model to account for the evolution of the anoles lizards in the Caribbean on multiple islands.
They claim that the new types of lizards are recreations of some
original, and only look like they are related by descent with
modification. On islands with some difference in altitude of their
coasts and highlands the lizards have evolved two different physical
types, that differed from the coasts and highlands, along with other differences between islands. What some researchers did was to cross the
two types and make hybrids, and they released the hybrids onto an island
that did not have anoles lizards. The hybrids were intermediate in
phenotype, but after just a few generations the highland phenotype was reconstituted and predominantly found in the highlands and the coastal phenotype had been reconstituted and was predominantly found in the
lowlands. Natural selection had selected the phenotypes adapted to
those conditions out of the mess that segregated from the hybrids.

Anyone that thinks that evolution by natural selection can't happen is
just wrong. An inadequate understanding of what is going on is no
reason to deny that it happens, and has happened.

Why do you think that lactose tolerance in adults is found at such high frequencies among agricultural cultures that rely on dairy? Why is it
pretty much nonexistant in hunter gatherer cultures? Is this just
chance differences that resulted from segregation from two people?
Denial is just stupid and dishonest at this time.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 23/02/2026 3:18 am, RonO wrote:

On 2/22/2026 12:32 AM, MarkE wrote:

Evidence is emerging that Dawkins' "Mt Improbable" is not Mt Fuji but
rather "rugged in all directions" [1]. Neat textbook depictions give
way to the reality of a "lack of viable evolutionary pathways among
the major optima."

Beneficial mutations do not work together, rather, "individually
beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to
ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

This is at the molecular level with an empirically determined ribozyme
fitness landscape. The paper's conclusion?

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

An appeal to chance of this magnitude is a deal-breaker: "We can
accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too
much." (The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins)

A similar situation applies for proteins: "...an emerging picture of
pervasive epistasis" within proteins [2].

"Both types of interaction are rampant, but specific epistasis has
stronger effects on the rate and outcomes of evolution, because it
imposes stricter constraints and modulates evolutionary potential more
dramatically; it therefore makes evolution more contingent on low-
probability historical events..."

Note the "*more contingent on low-probability historical events*".

While selection acts on the phenotype as a whole, molecular evolution
underlies the process.

My prediction: this "emerging picture" will continue to build as
evidence against a foundation of Darwinian evolution.

_______

[1] Mapping a Systematic Ribozyme Fitness Landscape Reveals a
Frustrated Evolutionary Network for Self-Aminoacylating RNA
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b13298

"...optimization of activity over the entire landscape would be
frustrated by large valleys of low activity."

"Our results show that the experimentally determined ribozyme activity
landscape exhibits a degree of frustration, as individually beneficial
mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to ruggedness on
the fitness landscape."

"...the inability to traverse the landscape globally corresponds to an
inability to restructure the ribozyme without losing activity."

"The ruggedness of the empirically determined ribozyme fitness
landscape reported here can be described by the Rough Mt. Fuji model,
which is a combination of a smooth 'Mt. Fuji' landscape and the random
House-of- Cards landscape...we suggest that the major [random] House-
of-Cards character found implies a substantial level of frustration,
consistent with the lack of viable evolutionary pathways among the
major optima."

"The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that
chance emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than
optimization by natural selection."

"It should be noted that mechanisms that favor greater genetic
diversity, such as recombination, gene duplication, or epistasis among
genes, could enable crossing of fitness valleys."

That is, a familiar mandatory positive spin, but followed by their
real conclusion:

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

_______

[2] Epistasis in protein evolution
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26833806/

And Bumble Bees can't fly.

Evolution by natural selection has been documented.-a It happens and is happening.-a You have to stop denying reality.-a You have to be a nut job
to deny that evolution by natural selection has happened and is
currently happening.

The reason to believe put up their recreation model to account for the evolution of the anoles lizards in the Caribbean on multiple islands.
They claim that the new types of lizards are recreations of some
original, and only look like they are related by descent with modification.-a On islands with some difference in altitude of their
coasts and highlands the lizards have evolved two different physical
types, that differed from the coasts and highlands, along with other differences between islands.-a What some researchers did was to cross the two types and make hybrids, and they released the hybrids onto an island that did not have anoles lizards.-a The hybrids were intermediate in phenotype, but after just a few generations the highland phenotype was reconstituted and predominantly found in the highlands and the coastal phenotype had been reconstituted and was predominantly found in the lowlands.-a Natural selection had selected the phenotypes adapted to
those conditions out of the mess that segregated from the hybrids.

Anyone that thinks that evolution by natural selection can't happen is
just wrong.-a An inadequate understanding of what is going on is no
reason to deny that it happens, and has happened.

Why do you think that lactose tolerance in adults is found at such high frequencies among agricultural cultures that rely on dairy?-a Why is it pretty much nonexistant in hunter gatherer cultures?-a Is this just
chance differences that resulted from segregation from two people?
Denial is just stupid and dishonest at this time.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, you say: "Evolution by natural selection has been documented. It
happens and is happening."

That is transparently begging the question. The primary purpose of talk.origins is to debate origins, 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.

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.





--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:52:16 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/02/2026 3:18 am, RonO wrote:

On 2/22/2026 12:32 AM, MarkE wrote:

Evidence is emerging that Dawkins' "Mt Improbable" is not Mt Fuji but
rather "rugged in all directions" [1]. Neat textbook depictions give
way to the reality of a "lack of viable evolutionary pathways among
the major optima."

Beneficial mutations do not work together, rather, "individually
beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to
ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

This is at the molecular level with an empirically determined ribozyme
fitness landscape. The paper's conclusion?

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

An appeal to chance of this magnitude is a deal-breaker: "We can
accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too
much." (The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins)

A similar situation applies for proteins: "...an emerging picture of
pervasive epistasis" within proteins [2].

"Both types of interaction are rampant, but specific epistasis has
stronger effects on the rate and outcomes of evolution, because it
imposes stricter constraints and modulates evolutionary potential more
dramatically; it therefore makes evolution more contingent on low-
probability historical events..."

Note the "*more contingent on low-probability historical events*".

While selection acts on the phenotype as a whole, molecular evolution
underlies the process.

My prediction: this "emerging picture" will continue to build as
evidence against a foundation of Darwinian evolution.

_______

[1] Mapping a Systematic Ribozyme Fitness Landscape Reveals a
Frustrated Evolutionary Network for Self-Aminoacylating RNA
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b13298

"...optimization of activity over the entire landscape would be
frustrated by large valleys of low activity."

"Our results show that the experimentally determined ribozyme activity
landscape exhibits a degree of frustration, as individually beneficial
mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to ruggedness on
the fitness landscape."

"...the inability to traverse the landscape globally corresponds to an
inability to restructure the ribozyme without losing activity."

"The ruggedness of the empirically determined ribozyme fitness
landscape reported here can be described by the Rough Mt. Fuji model,
which is a combination of a smooth 'Mt. Fuji' landscape and the random
House-of- Cards landscape...we suggest that the major [random] House-
of-Cards character found implies a substantial level of frustration,
consistent with the lack of viable evolutionary pathways among the
major optima."

"The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that
chance emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than
optimization by natural selection."

"It should be noted that mechanisms that favor greater genetic
diversity, such as recombination, gene duplication, or epistasis among
genes, could enable crossing of fitness valleys."

That is, a familiar mandatory positive spin, but followed by their
real conclusion:

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

_______

[2] Epistasis in protein evolution
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26833806/

And Bumble Bees can't fly.

Evolution by natural selection has been documented.a It happens and is
happening.a You have to stop denying reality.a You have to be a nut job
to deny that evolution by natural selection has happened and is
currently happening.

The reason to believe put up their recreation model to account for the
evolution of the anoles lizards in the Caribbean on multiple islands.
They claim that the new types of lizards are recreations of some
original, and only look like they are related by descent with
modification.a On islands with some difference in altitude of their
coasts and highlands the lizards have evolved two different physical
types, that differed from the coasts and highlands, along with other
differences between islands.a What some researchers did was to cross the
two types and make hybrids, and they released the hybrids onto an island
that did not have anoles lizards.a The hybrids were intermediate in
phenotype, but after just a few generations the highland phenotype was
reconstituted and predominantly found in the highlands and the coastal
phenotype had been reconstituted and was predominantly found in the
lowlands.a Natural selection had selected the phenotypes adapted to
those conditions out of the mess that segregated from the hybrids.

Anyone that thinks that evolution by natural selection can't happen is
just wrong.a An inadequate understanding of what is going on is no
reason to deny that it happens, and has happened.

Why do you think that lactose tolerance in adults is found at such high
frequencies among agricultural cultures that rely on dairy?a Why is it
pretty much nonexistant in hunter gatherer cultures?a Is this just
chance differences that resulted from segregation from two people?
Denial is just stupid and dishonest at this time.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, you say: "Evolution by natural selection has been documented. It >happens and is happening."

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.

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 2/22/2026 6:52 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 23/02/2026 3:18 am, RonO wrote:

On 2/22/2026 12:32 AM, MarkE wrote:

Evidence is emerging that Dawkins' "Mt Improbable" is not Mt Fuji but
rather "rugged in all directions" [1]. Neat textbook depictions give
way to the reality of a "lack of viable evolutionary pathways among
the major optima."

Beneficial mutations do not work together, rather, "individually
beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to
ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

This is at the molecular level with an empirically determined
ribozyme fitness landscape. The paper's conclusion?

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

An appeal to chance of this magnitude is a deal-breaker: "We can
accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too
much." (The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins)

A similar situation applies for proteins: "...an emerging picture of
pervasive epistasis" within proteins [2].

"Both types of interaction are rampant, but specific epistasis has
stronger effects on the rate and outcomes of evolution, because it
imposes stricter constraints and modulates evolutionary potential
more dramatically; it therefore makes evolution more contingent on
low- probability historical events..."

Note the "*more contingent on low-probability historical events*".

While selection acts on the phenotype as a whole, molecular evolution
underlies the process.

My prediction: this "emerging picture" will continue to build as
evidence against a foundation of Darwinian evolution.

_______

[1] Mapping a Systematic Ribozyme Fitness Landscape Reveals a
Frustrated Evolutionary Network for Self-Aminoacylating RNA
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b13298

"...optimization of activity over the entire landscape would be
frustrated by large valleys of low activity."

"Our results show that the experimentally determined ribozyme
activity landscape exhibits a degree of frustration, as individually
beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to
ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

"...the inability to traverse the landscape globally corresponds to
an inability to restructure the ribozyme without losing activity."

"The ruggedness of the empirically determined ribozyme fitness
landscape reported here can be described by the Rough Mt. Fuji model,
which is a combination of a smooth 'Mt. Fuji' landscape and the
random House-of- Cards landscape...we suggest that the major [random]
House- of-Cards character found implies a substantial level of
frustration, consistent with the lack of viable evolutionary pathways
among the major optima."

"The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that
chance emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than
optimization by natural selection."

"It should be noted that mechanisms that favor greater genetic
diversity, such as recombination, gene duplication, or epistasis
among genes, could enable crossing of fitness valleys."

That is, a familiar mandatory positive spin, but followed by their
real conclusion:

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

_______

[2] Epistasis in protein evolution
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26833806/

And Bumble Bees can't fly.

Evolution by natural selection has been documented.-a It happens and is
happening.-a You have to stop denying reality.-a You have to be a nut
job to deny that evolution by natural selection has happened and is
currently happening.

The reason to believe put up their recreation model to account for the
evolution of the anoles lizards in the Caribbean on multiple islands.
They claim that the new types of lizards are recreations of some
original, and only look like they are related by descent with
modification.-a On islands with some difference in altitude of their
coasts and highlands the lizards have evolved two different physical
types, that differed from the coasts and highlands, along with other
differences between islands.-a What some researchers did was to cross
the two types and make hybrids, and they released the hybrids onto an
island that did not have anoles lizards.-a The hybrids were
intermediate in phenotype, but after just a few generations the
highland phenotype was reconstituted and predominantly found in the
highlands and the coastal phenotype had been reconstituted and was
predominantly found in the lowlands.-a Natural selection had selected
the phenotypes adapted to those conditions out of the mess that
segregated from the hybrids.

Anyone that thinks that evolution by natural selection can't happen is
just wrong.-a An inadequate understanding of what is going on is no
reason to deny that it happens, and has happened.

Why do you think that lactose tolerance in adults is found at such
high frequencies among agricultural cultures that rely on dairy?-a Why
is it pretty much nonexistant in hunter gatherer cultures?-a Is this
just chance differences that resulted from segregation from two
people? Denial is just stupid and dishonest at this time.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, you say: "Evolution by natural selection has been documented.-a It happens and is happening."

That is transparently begging the question. The primary purpose of talk.origins is to debate origins, including the *question* of
evolution. Are you in the wrong forum then?

Biological evolution is a fact of nature. Just ask Behe and Denton.
The debate is pretty much over, and only denial is left for Creationists
like yourself.

The fact is that even YEC understand that biological evolution is a fact
of nature. In order to fit their kinds on the Ark they have to create
groups with some members having been evolving as separate lineages for
around 20 million years. It is evolution equivalent to claiming that
gibbons are in the human/ape kind.

You can look it up and find out that the genetic distance between the sabretoothed cats (estimated difference is around 20 million years
divergence) that existed during the ice age that occurred after the
flood is about the same as the difference between humans and gibbons.
The AIG claims that these cats all evolved from a single pair that was
on the Ark. The flood occurred just a few thousand years ago. This is
hyper evolution beyond anything that we actually have evidence of
happening. KSJJ used to claim that the flood occurred just 4,500 years
ago. Biological evolution is a fact even for YEC. They just call it microevolution except that some of their kinds are at the family level
where they have to claim that different genera that are more different
than the species within each genera are the same kind. This is beyond macroevolution at the species level. Really, the family felidae is just
as divergent as the super family Hominoidea. We only call Hominoidea a
super family because we want to claim that lesser apes and great apes
are different families. The AIG has ambulocetus on the Ark, likely,
because there were no whales on the Ark and everything with the breath
of life was killed in the flood. From ambulocetus (the walking whale)
to extant whales is around 50 million years worth of biological evolution.

If the Bible is correct about the global flood then biological
macroevolution is a fact of nature. Just think what kind of nut jobs
they have at the AIG if they expect 50 million years worth of biological evolution is possible in just a couple thousand years. The Reason to
Believe ex IDiots have their recreation stupidity, but the Bible says
nothing about further creation after the flood. Noah was tasked with
keeping all the kinds alive on the Ark.

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.

They believe in macroevolution they just lie to themselves about it. A
lot of new species had to evolve after the flood, and they needed to be descended from mostly single pairs of animals. That is a lot of descent
with modification. Really, the genetic distance between tabby and the sabretoothed monsters of the ice ages is about the same as the genetic distance between humans and gibbons. That is a lot of macroevolution at
the DNA level.

And you know doing this is not valid. Either that, or you don't
understand the terms and logic of this debate.

Even some of the ID perps understand that biological evolution is just a
fact of nature. Denton made a point of making that claim in his second
book. The other ID perps didn't like that book when they published a discussion that they had without Denton. They were mostly against
Denton's deistic IDiotic notions. None of the ID perps in the
discussion agreed with Denton's deistic notions. Denton quit the ID
scam and didn't come back until after the ID scam had lost in Dover over
half a decade later.

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.

That is all that it is. Demonstrate otherwise. You can't because that
is all that it is. We have the microevolutionary stages between chimps
and humans. The first upright walking apes were still arboreal. They
had ape feet, but they walked upright and had ape sized brains compared
to their body weight. More human like feet evolved, but the apes were
still mostly arboreal with ape sized brains. Australopithicines likely
spent more time on the ground and had brains slightly larger than a
chimp. Homo habilis had a larger brain a more human face, but still
likely spent some time in the trees. H. habilis started making stone
tools. Homo erectus had a larger brain and made more sophisticated
tools, and from the neck down were more like modern humans except that
their ribs flared out like Neanderthals and was more ape like. They
didn't have the hour glass figures of modern humans and had a more of a
fire hydrant like stout build. H. erectus brains kept getting larger
until the last ones over lap with the range found in modern humans.

So what was more than micro?

Instead, address the science:

"more contingent on low-probability historical events"

Denial gets you nowhere. What you need to do is start accepting the
science that means that your Biblical beliefs are wrong. You know that
the designer that fills the origin of life gap is not the designer
described in the Bible, and the designer that is responsible for the
evolution of life on this planet for billions of years is not the
designer described in the Bible. You are the one that should not be
wallowing in denial when you should be trying to figure out why your
Biblical beliefs fail so badly in helping you maintain the denial.

Nothing that the ID perps could have ever discovered about nature would
have helped you out. It would all just be more science to deny.

"The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that chance emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than optimization
by natural selection."

This likely is not true. Just as protein genes usually evolve by
duplication, and then altering the structure just enough to develop a
new function it would be expected to work the same way with ribozymes.
You need a sequence that will fold up into the same secondary structure
over and over even after being replicated. This just means that very
little RNA space likely was needed to be searched just as we have
determined that very little protein space has had to be searched in
order to do everything that life has needed for billions of years.

"is likely to result from chance events rather than natural selection."

Probably not true. Yes the existing ribozymes would evolve by arbitrary mutations, but the new functions would be selected for once the
mutations had happened in the existing ribozymes. Evolution depends on mistakes in replication. There would be selection for ribozymes that
could produce the most varied range of functions. Those would be the ribozymes that produced the RNA world.

"We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much."

Who cares? What you need to do is find Behe's 3 neutral mutations that occurred within Behe's time limit. No one has found any because we
expect them to be very rare and from what we have figured out so far
they have never been needed to produce any new function.

It looks like your luck is running out.

Your luck ran out when you realized that you never wanted to fill the
origin of life gap. Since then all that you have been doing is
wallowing in denial so that you can keep lying to yourself about
reality. You need to start trying to figure out how to deal with what
is already known about nature. Nature is not Biblical. Wallowing in
denial isn't going to change how the Bible fails you in this regard.

Ron Okimoto






--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 23/02/2026 2:04 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:52:16 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/02/2026 3:18 am, RonO wrote:

On 2/22/2026 12:32 AM, MarkE wrote:

Evidence is emerging that Dawkins' "Mt Improbable" is not Mt Fuji but
rather "rugged in all directions" [1]. Neat textbook depictions give
way to the reality of a "lack of viable evolutionary pathways among
the major optima."

Beneficial mutations do not work together, rather, "individually
beneficial mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to
ruggedness on the fitness landscape."

This is at the molecular level with an empirically determined ribozyme >>>> fitness landscape. The paper's conclusion?

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

An appeal to chance of this magnitude is a deal-breaker: "We can
accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too
much." (The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins)

A similar situation applies for proteins: "...an emerging picture of
pervasive epistasis" within proteins [2].

"Both types of interaction are rampant, but specific epistasis has
stronger effects on the rate and outcomes of evolution, because it
imposes stricter constraints and modulates evolutionary potential more >>>> dramatically; it therefore makes evolution more contingent on low-
probability historical events..."

Note the "*more contingent on low-probability historical events*".

While selection acts on the phenotype as a whole, molecular evolution
underlies the process.

My prediction: this "emerging picture" will continue to build as
evidence against a foundation of Darwinian evolution.

_______

[1] Mapping a Systematic Ribozyme Fitness Landscape Reveals a
Frustrated Evolutionary Network for Self-Aminoacylating RNA
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b13298

"...optimization of activity over the entire landscape would be
frustrated by large valleys of low activity."

"Our results show that the experimentally determined ribozyme activity >>>> landscape exhibits a degree of frustration, as individually beneficial >>>> mutations are often mutually incompatible, leading to ruggedness on
the fitness landscape."

"...the inability to traverse the landscape globally corresponds to an >>>> inability to restructure the ribozyme without losing activity."

"The ruggedness of the empirically determined ribozyme fitness
landscape reported here can be described by the Rough Mt. Fuji model,
which is a combination of a smooth 'Mt. Fuji' landscape and the random >>>> House-of- Cards landscape...we suggest that the major [random] House-
of-Cards character found implies a substantial level of frustration,
consistent with the lack of viable evolutionary pathways among the
major optima."

"The frustrated nature of the evolutionary network suggests that
chance emergence of a ribozyme motif would be more important than
optimization by natural selection."

"It should be noted that mechanisms that favor greater genetic
diversity, such as recombination, gene duplication, or epistasis among >>>> genes, could enable crossing of fitness valleys."

That is, a familiar mandatory positive spin, but followed by their
real conclusion:

"Nevertheless, in the absence of such mechanisms, the emergence of a
globally optimal sequence is likely to result from chance events
rather than natural selection."

_______

[2] Epistasis in protein evolution
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26833806/

And Bumble Bees can't fly.

Evolution by natural selection has been documented.-a It happens and is
happening.-a You have to stop denying reality.-a You have to be a nut job >>> to deny that evolution by natural selection has happened and is
currently happening.

The reason to believe put up their recreation model to account for the
evolution of the anoles lizards in the Caribbean on multiple islands.
They claim that the new types of lizards are recreations of some
original, and only look like they are related by descent with
modification.-a On islands with some difference in altitude of their
coasts and highlands the lizards have evolved two different physical
types, that differed from the coasts and highlands, along with other
differences between islands.-a What some researchers did was to cross the >>> two types and make hybrids, and they released the hybrids onto an island >>> that did not have anoles lizards.-a The hybrids were intermediate in
phenotype, but after just a few generations the highland phenotype was
reconstituted and predominantly found in the highlands and the coastal
phenotype had been reconstituted and was predominantly found in the
lowlands.-a Natural selection had selected the phenotypes adapted to
those conditions out of the mess that segregated from the hybrids.

Anyone that thinks that evolution by natural selection can't happen is
just wrong.-a An inadequate understanding of what is going on is no
reason to deny that it happens, and has happened.

Why do you think that lactose tolerance in adults is found at such high
frequencies among agricultural cultures that rely on dairy?-a Why is it
pretty much nonexistant in hunter gatherer cultures?-a Is this just
chance differences that resulted from segregation from two people?
Denial is just stupid and dishonest at this time.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, you say: "Evolution by natural selection has been documented. It
happens and is happening."

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
- macroevolution just-so stories
- universe from a quantum fluctuation
- fine-tuning as not-a-problem
- multiverse solves probabilistic problems
- etc

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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?

- 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.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 23/02/2026 2:57 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:00:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/02/2026 2:57 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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?

Let's see; you seem to have an interest in reducing science to
"faith-building" nature nuggets. Let's see how well that went for you
this time:

Fine-tuning

Even with an enormous number of "trials" available in that lottery? Furthermore, I'll ask again, what would you do if we had a Theory of Everything, and it predicted the values of the constants from first
principles?

low-entropy initial conditions,

From:

https://tinyurl.com/4ju5vah2

"Curiously, our Universe was born in a low entropy state, with
abundant free energy to power stars and life. The form that this free
energy takes is usually thought to be gravitational: the Universe is
almost perfectly smooth, and so can produce sources of energy as
matter collapses under gravity. It has recently been argued that a
more important source of low-entropy energy is nuclear: the Universe
expands too fast to remain in nuclear statistical equilibrium,
effectively shutting off nucleosynthesis in the first few minutes,
providing leftover hydrogen as fuel for stars."

initial conditions of
inflation,

From:

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10065666%5D

"Abstract: I review the present status of the problem of initial
conditions for inflation
and describe several ways to solve this problem for many popular
inflationary models, including the recent generation of the models
with plateau potentials favored by cosmological observations."

initial functional polymer sequences.

What do you mean by that?

- 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.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 24/02/2026 4:02 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:00:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/02/2026 2:57 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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?

Let's see; you seem to have an interest in reducing science to "faith-building" nature nuggets. Let's see how well that went for you
this time:

Fine-tuning

Even with an enormous number of "trials" available in that lottery? Furthermore, I'll ask again, what would you do if we had a Theory of Everything, and it predicted the values of the constants from first principles?

low-entropy initial conditions,

From:

https://tinyurl.com/4ju5vah2

"Curiously, our Universe was born in a low entropy state, with
abundant free energy to power stars and life. The form that this free
energy takes is usually thought to be gravitational: the Universe is
almost perfectly smooth, and so can produce sources of energy as
matter collapses under gravity. It has recently been argued that a
more important source of low-entropy energy is nuclear: the Universe
expands too fast to remain in nuclear statistical equilibrium,
effectively shutting off nucleosynthesis in the first few minutes,
providing leftover hydrogen as fuel for stars."

initial conditions of
inflation,

From:

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10065666%5D

"Abstract: I review the present status of the problem of initial
conditions for inflation
and describe several ways to solve this problem for many popular
inflationary models, including the recent generation of the models
with plateau potentials favored by cosmological observations."

initial functional polymer sequences.

What do you mean by that?

- 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.

Something to clarify first. Your manner here and our previous
interactions suggest you align with 2 below. But how would you describe
your position?

1. The evidence is sufficiently complex, substantial and unresolved to
support legitimate arguments for both materialism and theism.

2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid, ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
(Dawkins)

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:15:09 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 24/02/2026 4:02 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:00:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/02/2026 2:57 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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?

Let's see; you seem to have an interest in reducing science to
"faith-building" nature nuggets. Let's see how well that went for you
this time:

Fine-tuning

Even with an enormous number of "trials" available in that lottery?
Furthermore, I'll ask again, what would you do if we had a Theory of
Everything, and it predicted the values of the constants from first
principles?

low-entropy initial conditions,

From:

https://tinyurl.com/4ju5vah2

"Curiously, our Universe was born in a low entropy state, with
abundant free energy to power stars and life. The form that this free
energy takes is usually thought to be gravitational: the Universe is
almost perfectly smooth, and so can produce sources of energy as
matter collapses under gravity. It has recently been argued that a
more important source of low-entropy energy is nuclear: the Universe
expands too fast to remain in nuclear statistical equilibrium,
effectively shutting off nucleosynthesis in the first few minutes,
providing leftover hydrogen as fuel for stars."

initial conditions of
inflation,

From:

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10065666%5D

"Abstract: I review the present status of the problem of initial
conditions for inflation
and describe several ways to solve this problem for many popular
inflationary models, including the recent generation of the models
with plateau potentials favored by cosmological observations."

initial functional polymer sequences.

What do you mean by that?

- 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.

Something to clarify first. Your manner here and our previous
interactions suggest you align with 2 below. But how would you describe
your position?

1. The evidence is sufficiently complex, substantial and unresolved to >support legitimate arguments for both materialism and theism.

Is the evidence sufficiently complex, substantial, and unresolved to
support legitimate arguments for both traditional supporters of the
Jolly Green Giant, and those heretics who claim he never goes "Ho, ho,
no"?

2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid, >ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." >(Dawkins)

As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it." However, I really
might allow for "emotionally clouded sincerely mistaken" as well.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 25/02/2026 12:52 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:15:09 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 24/02/2026 4:02 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:00:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 23/02/2026 2:57 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:22:13 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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?

Let's see; you seem to have an interest in reducing science to
"faith-building" nature nuggets. Let's see how well that went for you
this time:

Fine-tuning

Even with an enormous number of "trials" available in that lottery?
Furthermore, I'll ask again, what would you do if we had a Theory of
Everything, and it predicted the values of the constants from first
principles?

low-entropy initial conditions,

From:

https://tinyurl.com/4ju5vah2

"Curiously, our Universe was born in a low entropy state, with
abundant free energy to power stars and life. The form that this free
energy takes is usually thought to be gravitational: the Universe is
almost perfectly smooth, and so can produce sources of energy as
matter collapses under gravity. It has recently been argued that a
more important source of low-entropy energy is nuclear: the Universe
expands too fast to remain in nuclear statistical equilibrium,
effectively shutting off nucleosynthesis in the first few minutes,
providing leftover hydrogen as fuel for stars."

initial conditions of
inflation,

From:

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10065666%5D

"Abstract: I review the present status of the problem of initial
conditions for inflation
and describe several ways to solve this problem for many popular
inflationary models, including the recent generation of the models
with plateau potentials favored by cosmological observations."

initial functional polymer sequences.

What do you mean by that?

- 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.

Something to clarify first. Your manner here and our previous
interactions suggest you align with 2 below. But how would you describe
your position?

1. The evidence is sufficiently complex, substantial and unresolved to
support legitimate arguments for both materialism and theism.

Is the evidence sufficiently complex, substantial, and unresolved to
support legitimate arguments for both traditional supporters of the
Jolly Green Giant, and those heretics who claim he never goes "Ho, ho,
no"?

2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid,
ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
(Dawkins)

As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it." However, I really
might allow for "emotionally clouded sincerely mistaken" as well.

I've no problem with people who strongly disagree with me - most of
discussion here is in that category. We've both been around TO for a
long time, and I suggest we both know that when someone adopts position
2, it almost always kills interesting dialogue.

I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being
materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc). You seem to reject theism
as a *possibility* - why is that?



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:11:01 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 25/02/2026 12:52 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

<snip>

Is the evidence sufficiently complex, substantial, and unresolved to
support legitimate arguments for both traditional supporters of the
Jolly Green Giant, and those heretics who claim he never goes "Ho, ho,
ho"?

2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid,
ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
(Dawkins)

As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it." However, I really
might allow for "emotionally clouded sincerely mistaken" as well.

I've no problem with people who strongly disagree with me - most of >discussion here is in that category. We've both been around TO for a
long time, and I suggest we both know that when someone adopts position
2, it almost always kills interesting dialogue.

Suit yourself. No one's forcing you to be here.

I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being
materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc).

Both deism and pantheism are forms of theism.

You seem to reject theism
as a *possibility* - why is that?

You seem to reject the possibility of the Jolly Green Giant as a
viable hypothesis for the origin of edible plants. Why is that?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 25/02/2026 4:33 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:11:01 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 25/02/2026 12:52 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

<snip>

Is the evidence sufficiently complex, substantial, and unresolved to
support legitimate arguments for both traditional supporters of the
Jolly Green Giant, and those heretics who claim he never goes "Ho, ho,
ho"?

2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid, >>>> ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
(Dawkins)

As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it." However, I really
might allow for "emotionally clouded sincerely mistaken" as well.

I've no problem with people who strongly disagree with me - most of
discussion here is in that category. We've both been around TO for a
long time, and I suggest we both know that when someone adopts position
2, it almost always kills interesting dialogue.

Suit yourself. No one's forcing you to be here.

I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being
materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc).

Both deism and pantheism are forms of theism.

You seem to reject theism
as a *possibility* - why is that?

You seem to reject the possibility of the Jolly Green Giant as a
viable hypothesis for the origin of edible plants. Why is that?

The irony. Your response demonstrates my point. I'm actually laughing
typing this.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 2026-02-24 8:11 p.m., MarkE wrote:

[big snip]

I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being
materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc). You seem to reject theism
as a *possibility* - why is that?

Okay, let me play.

I maintain that reality is either naturalism (what you see is what you
get materialism) or not ('not" being supernaturalism, theism being one
of an infinite number of supernatural proposals)

As a materialist I reject the supernatural as a legitimate explanation
for reality. I admit that there is much of reality that we (currently)
have not coherent explanation for and concede that there may be aspects
of reality that we lack the intellectual capacity to ever understand,
but supernatural explanations seem to be be mere personally generated placeholders for "I/we don't know".
Theism is one of many supernatural 'explanations'. Among theists there
are a multitude of incompatible 'explanations'.

I have found that most (all?) defenders of theism have one particular
version of theism in mind and personally reject most other versions.
IMHO this is intellectually dishonest.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:54:04 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 25/02/2026 4:33 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:11:01 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 25/02/2026 12:52 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

<snip>

Is the evidence sufficiently complex, substantial, and unresolved to
support legitimate arguments for both traditional supporters of the
Jolly Green Giant, and those heretics who claim he never goes "Ho, ho, >>>> ho"?

2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid, >>>>> ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
(Dawkins)

As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it." However, I really
might allow for "emotionally clouded sincerely mistaken" as well.

I've no problem with people who strongly disagree with me - most of
discussion here is in that category. We've both been around TO for a
long time, and I suggest we both know that when someone adopts position
2, it almost always kills interesting dialogue.

Suit yourself. No one's forcing you to be here.

I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being
materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc).

Both deism and pantheism are forms of theism.

You seem to reject theism
as a *possibility* - why is that?

You seem to reject the possibility of the Jolly Green Giant as a
viable hypothesis for the origin of edible plants. Why is that?

The irony. Your response demonstrates my point. I'm actually laughing
typing this.

What irony? What's so funny?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 26/02/2026 3:51 am, DB Cates wrote:

On 2026-02-24 8:11 p.m., MarkE wrote:

[big snip]

I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being
materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc). You seem to reject theism
as a *possibility* - why is that?

Okay, let me play.

I maintain that reality is either naturalism (what you see is what you
get materialism) or not ('not" being supernaturalism, theism being one
of an infinite number of supernatural proposals)

As a materialist I reject the supernatural as a legitimate explanation
for reality. I admit that there is much of reality that we (currently)
have not coherent explanation for and concede that there may be aspects
of reality that we lack the intellectual capacity to ever understand,
but supernatural explanations seem to be be mere personally generated placeholders for "I/we don't know".

I can understand that perspective, and appreciate that many thinking
people hold a view something like that. It has merit logically, in that
it doesn't preference a personal agent among possible supernatural causes/explanations.

Theism is one of many supernatural 'explanations'. Among theists there
are a multitude of incompatible 'explanations'.

I have found that most (all?) defenders of theism have one particular version of theism in mind and personally reject most other versions.
IMHO this is intellectually dishonest.

These are valid concerns. Christianity, for example, faces the charge of
"the scandal of the particular" - Christ's incarnation as an embodied
human in a particular time and place. And as you note, why Christianity
over other religions? Good questions.




--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:04:56 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 26/02/2026 3:51 am, DB Cates wrote:

On 2026-02-24 8:11 p.m., MarkE wrote:

[big snip]

I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being
materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc). You seem to reject theism
as a *possibility* - why is that?

Okay, let me play.

I maintain that reality is either naturalism (what you see is what you
get materialism) or not ('not" being supernaturalism, theism being one
of an infinite number of supernatural proposals)

As a materialist I reject the supernatural as a legitimate explanation
for reality. I admit that there is much of reality that we (currently) have not coherent explanation for and concede that there may be aspects
of reality that we lack the intellectual capacity to ever understand,
but supernatural explanations seem to be be mere personally generated placeholders for "I/we don't know".

I can understand that perspective, and appreciate that many thinking
people hold a view something like that. It has merit logically, in that
it doesn't preference a personal agent among possible supernatural causes/explanations.

Yet you feel unable to rule out any of the creationist attempts at self-justification.

Theism is one of many supernatural 'explanations'. Among theists there
are a multitude of incompatible 'explanations'.

I have found that most (all?) defenders of theism have one particular version of theism in mind and personally reject most other versions.
IMHO this is intellectually dishonest.

These are valid concerns. Christianity, for example, faces the charge of "the scandal of the particular" - Christ's incarnation as an embodied
human in a particular time and place. And as you note, why Christianity
over other religions? Good questions.

One self-proclaimed? son of god (who's individual mission failed rather
badly) is a whole different debate to that of the OoL. But feel
free to debate it here.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2