Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 355 of 452 (877347)
06-13-2020 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Kleinman
06-13-2020 12:07 PM


Re: Mutations can add information
quote:
The problem with your argument is that it is vague
It isn’t at all - if you accept the idea that DNA contains information relevant to the construction of the phenotype. And if you recognise that this is in the context of Richard Wang claiming that material processes cannot add information and that this is a prob,em for evolution.
quote:
What do you mean by "add information" and how do you measure this?
The first argument is constructed to avoid any need to define it further. It is only necessary to accept that a point mutation can change the amount of information in the DNA. A refusal to accept that point will lead to serious problems for any evolutionary argument.
The second argument appeals to the intuitive point that two useful genes with differing sequences will contain more information than either one on their own. There is no need for further measurement if that is accepted - and refusing to accept it is both counter-intuitive and likely to cause problems for the opposing argument.
quote:
Do all mutations add information?
This shows that the problem is in the reader, not the text since the first argument makes it clear that if an increase is possible then a decrease is also possible,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Kleinman, posted 06-13-2020 12:07 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 362 of 452 (877397)
06-15-2020 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Richard L. Wang
06-15-2020 12:37 PM


Re: PaulK, show evidence for mutations occur by natural law
quote:
How do you know it? What is the evidence to support your assertion?
For a start the fact that there is no evidence of any guiding force behind mutations. Mutations occur without regard for whether they will be useful or not. Many are not or are even harmful.
But really if you are going to claim the opposite you need evidence. Are we finally going to see you support your claims ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-15-2020 12:37 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-16-2020 4:14 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 363 of 452 (877398)
06-15-2020 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Richard L. Wang
06-15-2020 12:42 PM


Re: PaulK(351)&AZPaul3(356): evidence for point mutations producing genetic information
quote:
Can point mutations add genetic information
This is the same question as can point mutations lose genetic information?. What’s your position on that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-15-2020 12:42 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 376 of 452 (877467)
06-16-2020 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Richard L. Wang
06-16-2020 4:14 PM


Re: Re-PaulK(362): What is the connection
quote:
What is the connection between Mutations occur by natural law and Mutations occur without regard for whether they will be useful or not. Many are not or are even harmful?
Because it’s what we would expect if mutations were produced by the actions of natural law and not by the acts of an intelligence.
And I note that you do not produce the slightest evidence to the contrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-16-2020 4:14 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 377 of 452 (877469)
06-16-2020 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Richard L. Wang
06-16-2020 4:17 PM


Re: PaulK(263)&Taq(366): evidence for POINT mutations producing genetic information
quote:
I asked PaulK(Message 351) and AZPaul3(Message 356) to provide evidences that POINT mutations can produce genetic mutations. Maybe I should ask them for a little detail, that is, to ask them to provide evidences that POINT mutations can produce new genes, new enzymes, improved traits, or even new species, — which is meaningful new genetic information for biological evolution.
Perhaps you should actually deal with my response, too.
As I have already pointed out twice, if point mutations can lose information then point mutations can add information. And certainly they can contribute to all the things you mention even if they are not the complete story.
E.g. the diversification in duplication and diversification discussed in my earlier post is likely to involve point mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-16-2020 4:17 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 393 of 452 (877538)
06-17-2020 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Richard L. Wang
06-17-2020 4:26 PM


Re: Re-PaulK(377)&AZPaul3(385): point mutations are random, while
Non-random in what sense and how does it help your argument ?
Noting that you have yet again ignored my points and yet again have failed to produce any evidence that anything other than natural law is involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-17-2020 4:26 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 432 of 452 (879508)
07-17-2020 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Richard L. Wang
07-17-2020 9:59 AM


Re: AZPaul3: you have not replied RLW(429) yet
Maybe you should try to provide some evidence for your claims?
Falsely accusing others of deception is bad enough - when it seems to be intended to deceive further it becomes worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-17-2020 9:59 AM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Richard L. Wang, posted 07-17-2020 12:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024