|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
.....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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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 arerandom regarding fitness, but not random regarding life preservation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024