Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 166 of 296 (637066)
10-13-2011 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
10-12-2011 7:00 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
Your clarifications revealed that you have no significant disagreements with mainstream evolutionary views, you just prefer to use the terminology of intelligent design but with different definitions. In other words, you believe the same thing as evolutionists, you just prefer to express it using the words intelligent design advocates use, but only after changing their definitions. Your most significant redefinition of intelligent design's terminology was of the word intelligence:........You redefined the "intelligent" part of intelligent design to be nature. Basically you said nature is responsible, and evolutionists agree with you.
It seems strange to me. It got so much time to accept my ideas. I think the same does happen with Shapiro and Wright in this forum. They just give facts. They don't say anything about fact origin.Why are you so suspicious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 10-12-2011 7:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 10-13-2011 9:04 AM zi ko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 167 of 296 (637068)
10-13-2011 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by zi ko
10-13-2011 8:45 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
Alright, this is the second time in a row you've responded as if what you thought I was saying and what I thought I was saying were two different things, so let me change tack here by asking a couple questions.
What did you think I was saying? Maybe if I know that I'll be able to figure out how to express myself in a way you'll understand.
And you *do* understand that intelligent design advocates do not define the word "intelligence" the way you're defining it?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by zi ko, posted 10-13-2011 8:45 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by zi ko, posted 10-13-2011 10:49 AM Percy has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 168 of 296 (637090)
10-13-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Percy
10-13-2011 9:04 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
.....And you *do* understand that intelligent design advocates do not define the word "intelligence" the way you're defining it?...What did you think I was saying? .....
Of course i do. I thought i had made it clear from the beginning. You obviously say you regard me finally as evolutionist. But i think you have to define the word. If you mean by this that evolution it is based on complete randomness, which is a dogma and not quitely evidenced,i am not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 10-13-2011 9:04 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 10-13-2011 11:46 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 170 by Taq, posted 10-13-2011 2:39 PM zi ko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 169 of 296 (637102)
10-13-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by zi ko
10-13-2011 10:49 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
zi ko writes:
Of course i do. I thought i had made it clear from the beginning.
You probably did make it clear from the beginning, but around 15 people have contributed to this thread. We're supposed to remember that you're the guy using a different definition of intelligence?
You obviously say you regard me finally as evolutionist. But i think you have to define the word. If you mean by this that evolution it is based on complete randomness, which is a dogma and not quitely evidenced,i am not.
Every evolutionist I know would reject the notion that evolution "is based on complete randomness," so I guess you're an evolutionist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by zi ko, posted 10-13-2011 10:49 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 6:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 170 of 296 (637119)
10-13-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by zi ko
10-13-2011 10:49 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
If you mean by this that evolution it is based on complete randomness, . . .
Look up the term "conflation". This is what you are doing here. Again and again we have said that MUTATIONS are random with respect to fitness. Nowhere do we say that EVOLUTION is random. Mutation and evolution are two different things. Mutation is just one mechanism within the larger process of evolution. This larger process also consists of natural SELECTION. Selection, by the very definition, is NOT RANDOM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by zi ko, posted 10-13-2011 10:49 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by zi ko, posted 10-15-2011 10:15 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 171 of 296 (637120)
10-13-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by zi ko
10-12-2011 5:53 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
Random as regards fitness, but directed as regards life preservation.
How so? Please cite data from the paper which demonstrates that mutations are directed with respect to life preservation.
Yes. because it makes the job for nature.
Makes what job? I would call a detrimental mutation the exact opposite of an intelligent choice. What type of mutation would be inconsistent with an intelligent mechanism?
It is a mechanism that stems from nature's innate intelligence,
Please cite data from this paper which supports this assertion.
because this mechanism i don't believe could be created by chance,
Evidence please. Beliefs are not evidence.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2011 5:53 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 6:26 AM Taq has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 172 of 296 (637217)
10-14-2011 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Taq
10-13-2011 2:42 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
I would call a detrimental mutation the exact opposite of an intelligent choice. What type of mutation would be inconsistent with an intelligent mechanism?
A detrimental mutation is the exact opposite only to a part of the intelligence,which can include detriment products, as far as the life preservation primary target is succeeded.
Please cite data from the paper which demonstrates that mutations are directed with respect to life preservation.
Idon't have any such data, but in view of the complexity of the matter, you can't be sure that they will not come some time. Not knowing them now doesn't mean they don't exist. So your position includes a lot of belief too.
Only mutations that lead to whole life extinction would be the exact opposite to intelligence.
Evidence please. Beliefs are not evidence.
Do you think at present you have the evidence needed to believe tha t these mechanisms came outside nature's innate intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 10-13-2011 2:42 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 7:30 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 179 by Taq, posted 10-14-2011 11:46 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 173 of 296 (637218)
10-14-2011 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
10-13-2011 11:46 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
Every evolutionist I know would reject the notion that evolution "is based on complete randomness," so I guess you're an evolutionist.
Not, as far as complete randomness is restricted only by natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 10-13-2011 11:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 7:47 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 174 of 296 (637222)
10-14-2011 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by zi ko
10-14-2011 6:26 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
zi ko writes:
A detrimental mutation is the exact opposite only to a part of the intelligence,which can include detriment products, as far as the life preservation primary target is succeeded.
In other words, deleterious mutations are not inconsistent with the innate intelligence of nature, as long as life is preserved.
And what does it mean if life isn't preserved? What does it mean if a species goes extinct? I think you attempt an answer here:
Only mutations that lead to whole life extinction would be the exact opposite to intelligence.
So only the extinction of all life would be inconsistent with intelligent direction? A little extinction, a lot of extinction, wholesale extinction, they're all consistent with intelligence in nature as long as it's not complete extinction?
Do you think at present you have the evidence needed to believe tha t these mechanisms came outside nature's innate intelligence?
You're asking us if we have evidence that evolution is not a product of nature's inntate intelligence, when you have no evidence that there is any such thing as nature's innate intelligence? This is the same as asking if we have any evidence that evolution is not the product of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I don't have any such data...
Yes, we know, it's been the consistent theme of the intelligent design advocates in this thread, yet you continue participating anyway. Instead of supporting what you believe with data you just keep repeating what you believe in broken English.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 6:26 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 8:35 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 175 of 296 (637224)
10-14-2011 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by zi ko
10-14-2011 6:37 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
zi ko writes:
Every evolutionist I know would reject the notion that evolution "is based on complete randomness," so I guess you're an evolutionist.
No, as far as complete randomness is restricted only by natural selection.
I believe that the randomness of mutation is balanced by the non-randomness of natural selection. So do you. You're an evolutionist.
The only difference between us is that you believe the evolutionary process is evidence of the innate intelligence of nature. But then isn't the meteorological process that brings us sun and rain for our crops evidence of the innate intelligence of nature? And also the rotational and orbital processes that bring us night and day and the seasons? And the tectonic processes that place mineral ores within our reach? And the atomic processes that allow the very universe to exist? And your sole exception is that if all life goes extinct, then nature is not intelligent. What does it say about nature's intelligence when our sun becomes a red giant that engulfs the Earth a few billion years from now, wiping out all life?
You've got some ideas that you really, really want to believe are true, but they're just tenuous philosophical ruminations, and not very consistent ones at that. This thread is about the hard data in the Wright paper and what it indicates about directed evolution. You believe nature is intelligent. We get it, but it's not the topic of this thread.
I don't get what it is with you and Shadow. Any member can propose new topics over at Proposed New Topics, but instead of doing that you guys determinedly discuss your ideas in any thread you feel like it whether they're on topic or not. It got old a long time ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 6:37 AM zi ko has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 176 of 296 (637234)
10-14-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
10-14-2011 7:30 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
So only the extinction of all life would be inconsistent with intelligent direction? A little extinction, a lot of extinction, wholesale extinction, they're all consistent with intelligence in nature as long as it's not complete extinction?
exatly.
Yes, we know, it's been the consistent theme of the intelligent design advocates in this thread, yet you continue participating anyway. Instead of supporting what you believe with data you just keep repeating what you believe in broken English.
So you come back to suspicion again.. And so you think there is not innate nature intelligence , or am i wrong? You avoid to give me a clear answer on this.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 7:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 8:52 AM zi ko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 177 of 296 (637237)
10-14-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by zi ko
10-14-2011 8:35 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
zi ko writes:
So only the extinction of all life would be inconsistent with intelligent direction? A little extinction, a lot of extinction, wholesale extinction, they're all consistent with intelligence in nature as long as it's not complete extinction?
exatly.
Okay, good to know, but help us make sense of your position. Life originates and evolves on Earth and from this you conclude that nature has an innate intelligence. Now an asteroid collides with the Earth or the sun goes nova and all life is wiped out, i.e., becomes extinct. So up until that point you were sure that nature had an innate intelligence, but now that nature has allowed life to go extinct it means that it didn't have any innate intelligence?
zi ko writes:
So you come back to suspicion again.. And so you think there is not innate nature intelligence , or am i wrong? You avoid to give me a clear answer on this.
Suspicion? I have no idea what you're talking about, but it is true that I try to avoid going off-topic with you. This thread is about whether the data in the Wright paper supports the idea of directed evolution. You know, it isn't like it's any big challenge getting a thread promoted from Proposed New Topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 8:35 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 9:56 AM Percy has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 178 of 296 (637243)
10-14-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
10-14-2011 8:52 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
Okay, good to know, but help us make sense of your position. Life originates and evolves on Earth and from this you conclude that nature has an innate intelligence. Now an asteroid collides with the Earth or the sun goes nova and all life is wiped out, i.e., becomes extinct. So up until that point you were sure that nature had an innate intelligence, but now that nature has allowed life to go extinct it means that it didn't have any innate intelligence?
Universe is big.If life in earth goes extinct, it doesn't mean much. Innate intelligence continues to exist.
This thread is about whether the data in the Wright paper supports the idea of directed evolution.
In a broad sense the paper is irrelevant, as mutations are
random regarding fitness, but not random regarding life preservation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 8:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 2:25 PM zi ko has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 179 of 296 (637252)
10-14-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by zi ko
10-14-2011 6:26 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
A detrimental mutation is the exact opposite only to a part of the intelligence,which can include detriment products, as far as the life preservation primary target is succeeded.
So the intelligence is only in effect if the mutation is beneficial?
Then I can prove to you that I have ESP. It is quite simple, really. Just give me a billion dollars and I will buy a billion lottery tickets, using my ESP to choose each number on each ticket. You can just ignore all of the tickets that don't win. The proof that my ESP is accurate is the handful of tickets that do win.
Would you be convinced by this display of my ESP powers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 6:26 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by zi ko, posted 12-23-2011 10:53 AM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 180 of 296 (637288)
10-14-2011 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by zi ko
10-14-2011 9:56 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
zi ko writes:
Universe is big.If life in earth goes extinct, it doesn't mean much. Innate intelligence continues to exist.
You believe in the innate intelligence of nature because of the evidence that life on Earth has not gone extinct.
But if life on Earth did go extinct then you still believe in the innate intelligence of nature because life might exist elsewhere in the universe, for which you have no evidence.
You apparently do not require evidence for what you believe. You only require that you want to believe it, at which point you construct a rationale that makes sense to you but whose illogic is apparent to everyone else. As Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
zi ko writes:
In a broad sense the paper is irrelevant, as mutations are random regarding fitness, but not random regarding life preservation.
Fitness and "life preservation" are synonyms. Fitness is a measure of the ability to survive and produce progeny, and surviving and producing progeny is the very definition of the preservation of life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 9:56 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2011 2:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024