Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
77 online now:
PaulK, Pollux (2 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Happy Birthday: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 881,651 Year: 13,399/23,288 Month: 329/795 Week: 30/95 Day: 11/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 528
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 436 of 452 (879530)
07-17-2020 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Richard L. Wang
07-17-2020 12:08 PM


Re: Re-AZPaul3(433): reply straightforwardly, please
Richard L. Wang writes:

As I wrote in RLW(Message 429), this shows again that you have lost the debate on whether Darwinian-Naturalism is pseudoscience.


Actually, Darwinian evolution is qualitatively correct. It's when you quantitate his theory that you run into problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-17-2020 12:08 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 437 of 452 (879532)
07-17-2020 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Richard L. Wang
07-17-2020 12:06 PM


Re: Re-PaulK(432): who is deceiving?
quote:
I point out that Neo-Darwinists deceive the whole society

I don’t notice many people actually being deceived. I suspect that you made a fool of yourself by failing to understand, but if so, that’s really your problem. Randomness in common use is so poorly defined anyway it is up to you to make the effort.

quote:
their randomness definition artificially converts non-random mutations into random mutations.

Not really.

quote:
If you think I falsely accused Neo-Darwinists, please explain what is the reason that the uncertainty in the effects of mutations leads to that mutations are random?

Sure, the disconnection between the mutations and the environment is one of the factors that makes a stochastic model appropriate.

quote:
You can find the evidences of my argument from RLW(392, 398, 403, 408, 411 and 424).

Well let’s see if you offer any evidence of a violation of natural law or if it’s just more silliness like your assertion that cell phones violate natural law.
Message 392. No evidence.
Message 398 No evidence
Message 403. No evidence
Message 408. No evidence
Message 411 No evidence
Message 424. No evidence.

So I guess you’d better try again..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-17-2020 12:06 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-20-2020 2:52 PM PaulK has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 438 of 452 (879700)
07-20-2020 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by PaulK
07-17-2020 12:42 PM


PaulK: Please answer the question directly
In mathematics, randomness is the uncertainty of process results.

Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations in a very special way: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.

In transposition mutation, transposons can be excised, duplicated and relocated or inserted. This is a process similar to file editing – cutting, copying, and pasting. Editing is definitely non-random, and transposition is also non-random. However, transpositions can be beneficial, neutral or harmful, so according to the Neo-Darwinists’ definition of randomness, transposition is random.

David buys lottery tickets 6/49. To buy a lottery ticket, he has to choose 6 numbers from 49 numbers - 01, 02, 03, …, 49. David uses his birthday at 17:25 on October 5, 2001 as his six numbers: 20-01-10-05-17-25. The so-called process here is buying lottery tickets, and the process results are the ticket numbers. So, David buys his lottery tickets non-randomly. It is obvious that the process effects whether he wins or loses the lottery are uncertain. Therefore, according to the Neo-Darwinists’ definition of randomness, David buys lottery tickets randomly with respect to whether he wins or loses lottery.

Conclusions:
1. Neo-Darwinists define the randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, rather than the uncertainty of process results;
2. This Neo-Darwinian genetic mutation definition artificially turns all non-random mutations into random mutations.

Randomness is a simple and popular concept in mathematics and physics, and there is nothing sophisticated. Please answer the following question directly:

PaulK, do you agree with the above conclusions or not? If you disagree, please provide reasons.

At your level of knowledge, you can answer this question. The point is whether you are willing to accept the fact that you have lost this debate. You can keep silent, but don’t pretend that you haven’t lost the debate by making excuses not to answer the question directly, as you did in PaulK(Message 437). This only means that you lose not only the debate, but also your personal credit. Everyone, including you and me, makes mistakes in one way or another in life. Being honest is far more important than refusing to admit I made something wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2020 12:42 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2020 3:21 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 439 of 452 (879701)
07-20-2020 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Richard L. Wang
07-20-2020 2:52 PM


Re: PaulK: Please answer the question directly
quote:
Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations in a very special way: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.

It doesn’t seem special to me. And it is a very important point. It is what we’d expect if mutations were purely natural.

quote:
In transposition mutation, transposons can be excised, duplicated and relocated or inserted. This is a process similar to file editing – cutting, copying, and pasting. Editing is definitely non-random, and transposition is also non-random. However, transpositions can be beneficial, neutral or harmful, so according to the Neo-Darwinists’ definition of randomness, transposition is random.

You are not making much sense. A transposition is just a sequence of DNA moving around the genome. It even seems to be pretty random where it ends up. It certainly isn’t any more complex editing.

quote:
1. Neo-Darwinists define the randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, rather than the uncertainty of process results;

Define is a little strong - it is an accepted meaning, not the only one.

However, I would like to point out that a lottery should be random in exactly the same way. David’s numbers should not be more or less likely to come up because David has chosen them. If it did it would be a non-random aspect and the sort of non-random aspect that the lottery should avoid.

I would further add that this sort of randomness is exactly what we might expect if mutation did follow natural laws.

quote:
The point is whether you are willing to accept the fact that you have lost this debate.

The fact that you are heading off on a nit-picking diversion is proof that you have lost the debate.

quote:
You can keep silent, but don’t pretend that you haven’t lost the debate by making excuses not to answer the question directly, as you did in PaulK(Message 437).

I could more fairly accuse you of dodging the point I made in that post.

quote:
Being honest is far more important than refusing to admit I made something wrong.

Obviously it is not more important to you. This whole diversion proves that it is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-20-2020 2:52 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-20-2020 5:14 PM PaulK has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 440 of 452 (879705)
07-20-2020 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by PaulK
07-20-2020 3:21 PM


PaulK: Please answer the question directly
Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations in a very special way: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.

My question is

quote:
Do you agree or disagree that -
Neo-Darwinists define the randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, rather than the uncertainty of process results

Your reply in PaulK(Message 439) is –
quote:
It doesn’t seem special to me.
And it is a very important point.
It is what we’d expect if mutations were purely natural.
Define is a little strong - it is an accepted meaning, not the only one.

You write a lot, but you didn’t answer my question -
quote:
Do you agree or disagree that -
Neo-Darwinists define the randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, rather than the uncertainty of process results

PaulK: Please answer the question directly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2020 3:21 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2020 5:20 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 441 of 452 (879706)
07-20-2020 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Richard L. Wang
07-20-2020 5:14 PM


Re: PaulK: Please answer the question directly
I did answer it directly.

Define is a little strong - it is an accepted meaning, not the only one

Funny how that isn’t one of your quotes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-20-2020 5:14 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-20-2020 5:29 PM PaulK has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 442 of 452 (879707)
07-20-2020 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by PaulK
07-20-2020 5:20 PM


PaulK: Please answer the question directly
Your reply
quote:
Define is a little strong - it is an accepted meaning, not the only one.

is in my quote in RLW(Message 440), but it is NOT an answer to my question
quote:
Do you agree or disagree that -
Neo-Darwinists define the randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, rather than the uncertainty of process results

PaulK: Please answer the question directly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2020 5:20 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2020 12:13 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 443 of 452 (879719)
07-21-2020 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by Richard L. Wang
07-20-2020 5:29 PM


Re: PaulK: Please answer the question directly
It certainly answers your question.. if it isn’t the answer you want, then that’s your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-20-2020 5:29 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-21-2020 11:00 AM PaulK has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 444 of 452 (879742)
07-21-2020 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by PaulK
07-21-2020 12:13 AM


PaulK: Last time to ask you answer the question directly
My question is
quote:
Do you agree or disagree that -
Neo-Darwinists define the randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, rather than the uncertainty of process results
based on that Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.

Does what you wrote
quote:
Define is a little strong - it is an accepted meaning, not the only one.

answer my question? We have a political debate, not a scientific debate, so you play a word game? Science is based on facts. Scientific debate is meaningful on the premise that both sides of the debate accept facts, otherwise it will only waste time. The statement that
quote:
Neo-Darwinians define randomness as the uncertainty of process effect, rather than the uncertainty of process results

describes a fact. You can think of the Neo-Darwinian definition of the randomness of genetic mutation is correct, but you can't deny the fact that the Neo-Darwinists define randomness as the uncertainty of process effect, not the uncertainty of process result.

This is the last time I ask you, PaulK, to answer this question directly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2020 12:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2020 11:06 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 445 of 452 (879743)
07-21-2020 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by Richard L. Wang
07-21-2020 11:00 AM


Re: PaulK: Last time to ask you answer the question directly
quote:
Does what you wrote... answer my question?

Obviously it does. Why are you even trying to argue about that? I gave you an honest answer to your question.

quote:
We have a political debate, not a scientific debate, so you play a word game?

I’m not, but maybe you are trying to. Maybe that’s why you object to my answer.

Until you can give an honest explanation of what is wrong with my answer - and so far you’ve just insisted that it isn’t an answer when it obviously is - I’m certainly not going to change it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-21-2020 11:00 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-22-2020 3:45 PM PaulK has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 658
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 446 of 452 (879756)
07-21-2020 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 4:07 PM


You ask,

"What is the reason for DNists to believe that only natural laws operate in biological processes?"

It isn't so much that they "believe" this. It is only that it's difficult to do science if you have to incorporate a "theory of miracles" or some other supernatural element.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 4:07 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-22-2020 3:38 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 447 of 452 (879790)
07-22-2020 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Sarah Bellum
07-21-2020 3:50 PM


Re-Sarah(446): supernatural factors embedded in the observed facts
Supernatural element has been implanted into the observed biological processes. My recent messages demonstrate that all genetic mutations except point mutations are non-random, and random point mutations cannot produce genetic novelties. This means that biological evolution is driven by supernatural force, not natural forces. Take transposition, for example, which is similar to editing a file. When editing a file, you have to equip Microsoft Word and know how to use it. Similarly, to achieve transposition, cells must be equipped with a toolbox to perform excision, duplication and insertion and know how to use the toolbox. If you think it for a while, you can understand that the toolbox and the knowledge of using it cannot be generated in cells by natural forces but by supernatural force. Therefore, the question is that Darwinian-Naturalism cannot explain observed facts.

In the next post I’ll announce that the debate on this topic is over, and I’ll stop submitting posts. If you have anything to discuss, I’m sorry, I won’t answer. Maybe you can find some answers in my book “Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudoscience: Science Studies What God Created”.

Sorry again, and wish you all the best.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-21-2020 3:50 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2020 3:54 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 451 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2020 4:00 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 452 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-22-2020 4:17 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 448 of 452 (879793)
07-22-2020 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by PaulK
07-21-2020 11:06 AM


A debate is meaningless if not accept fact. THIS DEBATE IS OVER
The answer to my question is simply YES or NO, because my question is, do you recognize the fact that “Neo-Darwinians define randomness as the uncertainty of process effect, rather than the uncertainty of process results”.

Have you answered my question? You know, I know, and everyone who reads these messages knows it as well.

It’s just a waste of time arguing whether you answered my question.

A DEBATE IS MEANINGLESS IF NOT ACCEPT FACT. THE DEBATE ON THIS TOPIC IS OVER.

What is the conclusion of this debate? This is that

quote:
Neo-Darwinists define randomness as the uncertainty of process effect, not the uncertainty of process results, so this definition artificially convers all non-random mutations into random mutations. Darwinian-Naturalism is pseudoscience, which has deceived the whole society for decades by claiming that biological evolution is driven by natural forces.

Who are the winners and losers of this debate? It is not so important, but you know, I know, and everyone who reads these messages knows it as well.

THE DEBATE ON THIS TOPIC IS OVER.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2020 11:06 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2020 3:56 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 449 of 452 (879797)
07-22-2020 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Richard L. Wang
07-22-2020 3:38 PM


Re: Re-Sarah(446): supernatural factors embedded in the observed facts
quote:
Supernatural element has been implanted into the observed biological processes.

That is your opinion, but so far you have produced no real evidence for it.

quote:
My recent messages demonstrate that all genetic mutations except point mutations are non-random,

That is an outright falsehood.

quote:
Take transposition, for example, which is similar to editing a file.

If cutting and pasting to a random location is your idea of editing. I’m surprised that your posts are coherent if that’s true.

quote:
file. When editing a file, you have to equip Microsoft Word and know how to use it. Similarly, to achieve transposition, cells must be equipped with a toolbox to perform excision, duplication and insertion and know how to use the toolbox. If you think it for a while, you can understand that the toolbox and the knowledge of using it cannot be generated in cells by natural forces but by supernatural force.

And that offers a whole lot more options that just transpositions. And if only that were the only problem with the argument. You provide no evidence that transpositions are intelligently directed at all. Nor do you address the underlying chemistry.

quote:
Therefore, the question is that Darwinian-Naturalism cannot explain observed facts.

Bad analogies are not observed facts. So,blocks of DNA can move randomly. How is this evidence of the supernatural ? Your supposed analogy assumes intelligent control but you provide no evidence of it at all. indeed the fact that mutations are random with respect to fitness is one reason to believe that there is no intelligent direction behind transpositions or any other mutation.

quote:
In the next post I’ll announce that the debate on this topic is over, and I’ll stop submitting posts.

I hope you will have the honesty to admit that you lost through a failure to provide any real evidence at all for your position.

But I don’t have much hope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-22-2020 3:38 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 450 of 452 (879798)
07-22-2020 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Richard L. Wang
07-22-2020 3:45 PM


Re: A debate is meaningless if not accept fact. THIS DEBATE IS OVER
quote:
A DEBATE IS MEANINGLESS IF NOT ACCEPT FACT. THE DEBATE ON THIS TOPIC IS OVER.

I disagree. Your refusal to accept facts is a big part of your crushing defeat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-22-2020 3:45 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020