|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
zi ko writes: 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. 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.
Which of us two seem to fool himself more? Well, apparently you're not fooling yourself about your fallacious thinking, since you understand it's fallacious, but you are fooling yourself about what I believe. I don't believe man was created by pure chance. I believe all life on Earth came about through a lengthy process of mutation, remixing and recombining of variation, and natural selection. 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. Do you have anything to say about the topic? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
shadow71 writes: First of all, how did Life on Earth come about?...etc... Could you at least pretend to be interested in the topic?
You can't just say, well that is not a question for Evolution. It is the most crucial question there is. Well, then why are you wasting time in this thread? Get over to Proposed New Topics and propose a new thread for this most crucial question. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Zi Ko,
This thread is about whether the Wright paper presents evidence of directed evolution. The sufficiency of mutation to provide adequate variation and the evolution of instinct are not the topic of this thread. You and Shadow have raised many off-topic issues and questions, and you can discuss them as much as you like, but you need to find threads where they would be on-topic, or you need to propose topics for them over at Proposed New Topics. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Kaichos Man,
Your position is that evolution could not possibly produce adaptation to the environment because it is random. But it is only mutation and allele remixing that are random. Selection is specific to the environment. AbE: I should add that mutation is usually completely random with respect to producing adaptations to the environment, while remixing through either non-sexual conjugation or sexual reproduction is operating on alleles that have already passed through generations of selection. --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
We could discus how random mutation combined with natural selection produces adaptation in a thread where it would be on-topic, but not here. This thread is Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation, and a prerequisite for participation is an understanding of how evolution works.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Zi Ko,
I again suggest you take this to a thread where it would be on topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
zi ko writes: 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. There's a kernel of truth in this. While no evolutionist here believes the products of evolution are random with respect to adaptation, we do believe the specific implementations and methods of adaptation selected by evolution are not predictable. As Stephen Jay Gould said many times (or maybe just was quoted many times), if you rewound the history of life and played it over again, history would not repeat itself. It would be like rewinding a movie to hear a line you missed only to find the line had changed. Neutral mutations may explain why this is so. Unaffected by selection pressures, neutral mutations are free to go in any direction. If, for instance, the particular whorls of ears and fingerprints are independent of selection then their evolutionary change could go in any direction, in other words, random. But that life is adapted to its environment cannot be the result of randomness. The specific alternative paths toward adaptation are random, but that life adapts is not due to randomness. Think of it like a gumdrop factory that produces gumdrops of all colors, but a machine on the end selects only red. No one would call the process by which only red gumdrops emerge from the factory random. Or consider a backgammon game. The rolls of the dice are random, but the decisions about what to do are based upon the board position, analogous to the environment. Allplayers get random rolls, but the better players are able to, ahem, better adapt those rolls to the current situation. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix 2nd sentence of last paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Chuck77 writes: I don't agree with what zi ko believes as far as evolution but if I we're advocating for him I would say if there was no factory it would be random no doubt. So let's just call the "factory" the designer, therefore, not random. I'd be guessing as to what you're trying to say, so I won't attempt response. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Chuck77 writes: Although this isn't the thread for it, but I took your analogy to infer a desinger when you mentioned factory. I'm an unlikely person to infer a designer. The factory producing gumdrops of all colors is analogous to reproduction producing mutations of all types. The machine on the end selecting for red gumdrops is analogous to natural selection selecting for good adaptation to the environment. A random assortment of colors becomes only red ones, a random assortment of mutations becomes only adaptive ones. So when we look at the factory's output and see only red ones we are unlikely to conclude that the manufacturing process, considered in its entirety (random assortment of colored gumdrops plus the "select red" machine), is random. And when we see only adaptive mutations we are unlikely to conclude that the evolutionary process, considered in its entirety (random mutation plus natural selection) is random with respect to adaptation. Of course, the analogy is just to illustrate why evolutionists do not consider evolution a random process with respect to adaptation. It's not intended as an illustration of evolution itself. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024