Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 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 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 163 of 296 (636984)
10-12-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
10-11-2011 3:19 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
You're co-opting the vocabulary of intelligent design but redefining the terms to advocate for a rather mainstream evolutionary position. Confusion is the inevitable result.
Mainstream position doesn't always means the correct one. Where is the confusion, if the hypothesis happens to be proved at the end wright? It is confortable to speak from authority. But where are the arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 10-11-2011 3:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 10-12-2011 7:00 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 164 of 296 (636988)
10-12-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Taq
10-12-2011 12:29 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
So what are they with regards to the paper under discussion: entirely random, semi-directed, or entirely directed? Please support your argument with reference to the data found in the paper.
Also, how do detrimental mutations fit into your argument?
Random as regards fitness, but directed as regards life preservation. Detrimental mutations are to be expected in random mutations.
Do you consider it "intelligent" when it produces detrimental mutations? If so, why? Why is it a good idea to produce detrimental mutations?
Yes. because it makes the job for nature.
Then why don't you just call it a mechanism?
It is a mechanism that stems from nature's innate intelligence, because this mechanism i don't believe could be created by chance, if this is your belief.So our difference is just a matter of belief, as you have no evidence to support your belief.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 10-12-2011 12:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 10-13-2011 2:42 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 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

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 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

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 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 3610 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

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 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

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 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

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 181 of 296 (637292)
10-14-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
10-14-2011 2:25 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
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.
At least i am honest to state that what i am saying about innate intelligent is without evidence, while you believe man has been created by pure chance, again with no evidence whatsoever. Which of us two seem to fool himself more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 2:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Taq, posted 10-14-2011 4:04 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 4:54 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 186 of 296 (637398)
10-15-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Taq
10-13-2011 2:39 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
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.
I understand that current theory has a (superficially ?) powered logical form for evolution entirely mechanistic and simple: Random mutations- natural selection and we have solved the problem of life evolution. But there are some nags here.fe.c 1.The number of random mutations needed for a succesfull phenotype or genotype advance. Mathematicians think they are needed many more than the given time permits (even millions of years). 2.The instinct formation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Taq, posted 10-13-2011 2:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 10-15-2011 10:33 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 10-17-2011 12:18 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 214 of 296 (644032)
12-14-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Taq
10-14-2011 4:04 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
while you believe man has been created by pure chance,
Where did Percy ever say that?
If Percy and you really believe that random mutations exist, then you believe that man has been created by pure chance, becouse mutations is the critical factor in evolution.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Taq, posted 10-14-2011 4:04 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 12-14-2011 11:43 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2011 11:52 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 12-14-2011 11:53 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 220 by Taq, posted 12-14-2011 3:06 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 218 of 296 (644038)
12-14-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
10-14-2011 4:54 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
So you understand that your thinking is fallacious, but you justify it because you believe my thinking is also fallacious. Well, all I've got to say is thank God two wrongs make a right. Oh, wait a minute, they don't
Believing in something you can't prove it doesn't mean it is inevitably fallacious.
Innate intelligence is a fact, becouse universal laws is a fact. Just closing eyes before facts is not the cleverest act in the world.
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that natural selection is not random. It isn't directed, there's no goal, but it is certainly not random.
Of course natural selection is not random. When did i say it? But you believe mutations are. And this the crucial thing in evolution. In my opinion random mutations exist but they are less important in relation to those, which are environment information guided.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 10-14-2011 4:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 12-14-2011 2:19 PM zi ko has not replied
 Message 224 by herebedragons, posted 12-22-2011 7:58 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 222 of 296 (644094)
12-15-2011 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Taq
12-14-2011 3:06 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
Selection and mutation are equally important. Mutation is important for creating variability, and it is random with respect to fitness. Selection is important for filtering these variations in phenotype so that the population adapts to their environment over many generations. So which is more important, having variation or adapting to your environment?
There is no point of disagreeing which of them is most important in evolution.As you say mutation is important for CREATING variability.Natural selection is a filtering mechanism, applying to all types of evolution (by endosymbiosis,random mutations, guided mutations, neural system intervention).This is where we really disagree; the degree of other types of evolution participation and of course manly if there are other types of evolution.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Taq, posted 12-14-2011 3:06 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 12-20-2011 12:26 PM zi ko has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 228 of 296 (645112)
12-23-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Taq
10-14-2011 11:46 AM


Re: beneficial mutations
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?
Nature's intelligence springs out of universal laws. You can't just wipe off universal laws becouse they let detrimental mutations to happen as they can afford it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Taq, posted 10-14-2011 11:46 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2011 11:09 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3610 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 230 of 296 (645116)
12-23-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
10-17-2011 12:18 PM


Re: beneficial mutations
2. You have not acknowledged the mistakes that I have pointed out. You keep saying that evolution is random. It isn't. Trying to change the subject does not make this mistake go away.
I never said evolution is random. I know that natural selection is not random.What i am saying is : As you believe that mutations are random and as i think mutations is the critical factor in evolution, you really believe man is a product of randomness. Natural selection being just only a filtering mechanism , does not change the nature of the product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 10-17-2011 12:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 12-23-2011 1:27 PM zi ko has not replied
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 12-24-2011 6:16 AM zi ko has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024