NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

Thanks, that is all good information.

There is no difference between the concepts. They are one in the same.The rest of your post is equally as wrong.Mutations are random with respect to fitness. That's what the really smart guys have been telling us for the last 100+- years and no one, certainly not you or Kleinman, have ever been able to show anything different regardless of how you fake and fiddle the math.

After reading Taq(Message 419), I realize that there is something wrong in RLW(Message 413) and I should modify my understanding of the transposon insertion process. Thank you, Taq.Transposon insertion involves two types of forces: natural force and X force related to bioinformatic process.Natural forces cause transposon insertion to be random. As pointed out in RLW(Message 413), From the point of view of molecular mechanics — bond broking and binding -, transposon insertion should be similar to point insertion, that is, each site on the genome should be approximately the same. This means that the transposons can insert into any site between two adjacent bases, including within genes, with almost same probability. Thus, as Taq(Message 419) wrote, Transposons can insert into genes and knock them out.However, there is another force related to transposon insertion as a bioinformatic process, which I denote as X force. Because information, including genetic information, does not follow the natural laws, but follows its own rules. Therefore, bioinformatic processes must also be controlled by some regulations. In your experiment, There are short sequences that transposons like to insert into, but those short sequences are found throughout the genome and the transposon will insert randomly among them. It is such regulation that transposons prefer to insert into these short sequences. What is the reason? Maybe to avoid to damage the original genome.Why those short sequences are found throughout the genome? For example, if I want to insert a word into the previous paragraph without breaking all the original words, I can invert the word after the comma or period, and the comma or period spread through the whole paragraph.Under the regulation, the transposon will insert randomly among them, but this RANDOM of mutation is different from the RANDOM of mutation insisted by Neo-Darwinists.First, why Neo-Darwinists insist that genetic mutations are random is because they want to emphasize that mutations are driven by natural forces. Natural forces are directionless and purposeless, so if mutations are natural processes completely controlled by the natural laws, then mutations must be random, but your experiments show that there are regulations at work other than the natural laws.Second, Neo-Darwinian randomness should occur without any additional conditions, but in your experiments, the randomness of transposon insertions is controlled by regulations.

In mathematics, randomness means the uncertainty of process results. In order to insist that all genetic mutations are random, Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations in a very special way: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. This shows that Neo-Darwinists define randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, not the uncertainty of process results.Tell you a story —Suppose Bill and David both buy lottery tickets 6/49. When buying lottery tickets, they have to choose 6 numbers from 49 numbers - 01, 02, 03, , 49. Bill uses Auto-Pick to randomly select 6 numbers, while David uses his birthday at 17:25 on October 5, 2001 as his six numbers: 20-01-10-05-17-25.The processes here are that they buy lottery tickets, and the process results are the ticket numbers. So, Bill buys his lottery tickets randomly, while David buys his lottery tickets non-randomly.The process effects of their buying lottery refer to whether they win or lose the lottery, and obviously the process effects are uncertain: most probably they will lose and very rarely they may win. Therefore, according to the Neo-Darwinists’ special definition of randomness, both Bill and David buy lottery tickets randomly with respect to whether they win or lose lottery. So, Neo-Darwinists define randomness such that it artificially changes David buys lottery tickets non-randomly into David buys lottery tickets randomly.The really smart guys have deceived the whole society through this Neo-Darwinists’ special definition of randomness for decades. Why? They want to insist that biological evolution is a natural process based on the natural laws. But this is wrong.

It's all natural forces, from start to finish. The function of the enzymes, DNA binding, and so forth are all natural processes and forces. This is something you have made up from whole cloth. It simply isn't true. Base matching. Complementary bases on the genome and transposon sequences physically stick to each other because of their charges and shape. They are one in the same. Mutations are observed to be the result of natural forces. Mutations are observed to be random. Again, that is something you have made up from whole cloth. It's controlled by natural forces.

How are the winning lottery numbers chosen?There is no person consciously picking mutations in biological organisms. Mutations are the result of very basic chemistry and physics.

The greatest tool in science is mathematics. There is a reason the study of any science requires first the study of mathematics. Scientists understand the requirements of math and choose their math terms very rigorously. We really don't give a damn about any religious implications.Random with respect to fitness has a very specific meaning in genetics that is crafted to further the understanding of the reality. It is not chosen as a deception to facilitate some weird conspiracy to further a prized philosophy. That is just stupid talk that comes from stupid people.It is the religiously motivated acolyte who must fold, spindle and mutilate standard scientific terms and mathematical concepts trying to gain some linguistic advantage thinking this gains them some philosophical advantage and debating points. It does neither. All such manipulations show of the acolyte is their ignorance of both the science and the mathematics.

1. Please explain the result of your experiment that There are short sequences that transposons like to insert into;
2. Mutations are observed to be the result of natural forces. Please show one such observation;
3. Mutations are observed to be random. Please show one such observation. Your experiment shows the transposon insertions are non-random that transposons prefer to inset into those short sequences.

From AZPaul3(Message 427), you begin to play religion card. In fact, this shows that you have lost the debate on whether Darwinian-Naturalism is pseudoscience.As I pointed out, random is a simple and popular concept in mathematics and physics, and there is nothing sophisticated. Please answer the following question straightforwardly:Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations in a very special way: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. What is the reason that the uncertainty in the effects of mutations leads to that mutations are random?For the story in RLW(Message 424), which one is correct: David buys lottery tickets non-randomly or David buys lottery tickets randomly? Why?

Sixteen days passed, haven't you, Taq, got the answer yet?

Sixteen days later, haven't you got the answer 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.

No. And you're not going to get one.You're a crackpot who is taking a well defined and established concept in science and trying to twist and obfuscate its meaning to fit an untenable position.You are like those physics genius wannabes who insist they can disprove Special Relativity by redefining Einstein's postulates on Lorentz transformations with their own half-assed coordinate systems.There is nothing to answer here.

In mathematics, randomness means the uncertainty of process results. In order to insist that genetic mutations are random, Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations by the uncertainty of process effects rather than the uncertainty of process results: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.I point out that Neo-Darwinists deceive the whole society: their randomness definition artificially converts non-random mutations into random mutations. 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?You can find the evidences of my argument from RLW(392, 398, 403, 408, 411 and 424).

The question we discuss here has nothing to do with Special Relativity. As I wrote in RLW(Message 429), this shows again that you have lost the debate on whether Darwinian-Naturalism is pseudoscience.I repeat the message in RLW(Message 429) here. Randomness is a simple and popular concept in mathematics and physics, and there is nothing sophisticated. Please answer the following question straightforwardly:Neo-Darwinists define the randomness of genetic mutations in a very special way: mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. What is the reason that the uncertainty in the effects of mutations leads to that mutations are random?For the story in RLW(Message 424), which one is correct: David buys lottery tickets non-randomly or David buys lottery tickets randomly? Why?