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

Your reply is not long, but contains many new ideas:
- Gene duplication and insertion, regardless of where the duplicate ends up, is random
- The nucleotide sequence may be highly repetitive but is due to a single random repetitive insertion error.Don’t you think your ideas are more convincing than the Neo-Darwinian concept of mutation randomness? Why don’t you argue the concept of mutation randomness with Neo-Darwinists, so as to replace the Neo-Darwinian concept of mutation randomness with yours?Unfortunately, your ideas are theoretically wrong, and you don’t know how to demonstrate your concepts theoretically. And your assertion that Of course the insertion site can be anywhere in the genome. It is *not* limited to only specific sites where "it cannot damage the original genome." If the insertion damages the genome then most probably the fish doesn't live to breed is not supported by evidence of molecular biology.What is the most important thing in science? The first one is evidence, the second one is evidence, and the third one is still evidence.Random is a very simple and popular concept in mathematics and physics. A random process simply means that the output or result is uncertain. There are no random in respect to benefit" or "random in respect to fitness", there is only random in respect to output.As pointed out in RLW(Message 413) that There are two related and different things: coping, and the effect of coping. Coping a mutated segment may be beneficial, neutral or deleterious, which means the effect of coping is uncertain, so the correct statement should be that the effect of coping is random, but the coping itself is non-random. The question is why Neo-Darwinists insist that coping is random, because the effect of coping is random?This is why I call Darwinian-Naturalism pseudoscience. Neo-Darwinists deceived society for decades by taking the effect of copying is random as their reason for claiming that coping is random.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.