mark gamache

I have no idea what I am doing.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@JimBowersclimb @ScienceQriosity @Willbpeace @BasicHeresy @DivinelyDesined @grok @grok is evolution scientifically valid

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@darwintojesus It's an excellent rebuttal. You just don't like it.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@Willbpeace @BasicHeresy @DivinelyDesined @grok list ways evolution can be falsified

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@Willbpeace @BasicHeresy @DivinelyDesined Experimentation is not the criteria for science. The demarcation is predictions and falsifiability (experimentation is only one option). Evolution can be falsified easily and creation is unfalsifiable, therefore non-scientific.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@BasicHeresy @Willbpeace @DivinelyDesined He should explain how 'creative design' can be falsified?

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@samsenchal @SpeedWatkins In Mackie's argument (as I understand it) all humans would freely choose the good. If you claim an optimal world needs choice in which some choose evil then evil is in service of the maximal good, so is it evil?

[mark gamache @markgamache]

This clearly says we have observed evolution. The ‘while it’s happening’ is sloppy wording. Evolution is always happening, it’s just difficult to measure on short timescales. So yes it’s been observed millions of times. Each of those observations could have falsified evolution and it failed to.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@ApoloJedi_ @Masterzips Evolution has been observed millions if not billions of times. Just stop posting the recycled nonsense.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

It's obvious that she doesn't understand evolution and mutation and repair. Calling it a 'fantasy land' is not an argument against anything.

The point you need to refute is that incremental improvements in genome stability are selectable immediately. Early life did not need modern repair systems. It needed just enough fidelity to reproduce. If a primitive system reduced lethal errors even slightly, selection could favor it. Why exactly would that not work? Any chemistry or primitive enzyme that reduced lethal errors enough for replication to continue would be selectable, and later systems could improve fidelity further.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

I get it but she doesn't. The repair keeps the balance between fidelity and variation. Biology does not require that early DNA had all (or any of) the repair features we see today, just enough stability to reproduce. It was probably shorter and simpler. Mutation rates are not an all or nothing switch. High mutation rates (and low mutation rates) would slow down the adaptations.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

I think Claude 4.8 has had a lobotomy.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

DNA repair is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts for organisms under selection. There's enough fidelity to avoid mutational meltdown, enough imperfection to allow variation, and population-level sorting over time. Yes, uncontrolled mutation is dangerous. She is wrong to conclude that the need for repair makes evolution impossible. I can provide more details and timestamps of specific misrepresentations if you like.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@ApoloJedi_ @Masterzips Like most other creationists she doesn’t have a clue about evolution. Or she’s lying for Jesus.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@larpcapitalwc @ScottPh77711570 Shoulder replacement.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@MartinTweats Our brains run an approximation or simulation of reality. It’s a form of lossy data compression. It’s a tradeoff as processing all available data would take an infinite amount of energy. Just like a map is not the territory, but is a model.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

Not really, I know there are other's that think along these lines, but not the way I think about it. Based on Dawkins Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype.

From first principles: Morality is an extended human phenotype: a transmissible behavioral regulation. Moral norms are copied, modified, selected, stabilized, and externalized using things like culture (and other methods). Just as the adaptive value of a moth’s coloration is an objective relation between phenotype and environment, the adaptive value of a moral norm is how well it allows genes to forward to the next generation(s). When studying any other organism, biologists would not look at behavior and think it doesn't have an adaptive impact on and is not a result of evolution.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@limitandmind Me.

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@Tsar_Martyr Bueller…

[mark gamache @markgamache]

@Tsar_Martyr Bueller...