I have already explained what I am proposing and given links to it - but I do not understand what parts of it could be considered supernatural.
I said that I like epistemology because it can be considered in terms of evolutionary theory and can become part of merger with other applications of evolution, including biology.
You have admitted that RMNS occurs, so it's not a "mantra." OTOH, you have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible.
If there is no supernatural, then your God should have scientifically measurable properties.
My point is that I choose (a godlike attribute, perhaps) not to defend the worldview of materialism/naturalism which logically must posit 'god cannot exist'.
My god? When have I mentioned god?
My point is that I choose (a godlike attribute, perhaps
There is a field of evolutionary epistemology. See for example, Plotkin "The Nature of Knowledge." That work posits not just that epistemology can usefully be discussed in evolutionary terms but that knowedge is the general product of all evolution.
How so?Hammegk said:
Post the link one more time, please.Hewitt said:
I agree.
My god? When have I mentioned god?
My point is that I choose (a godlike attribute, perhaps
Ok, let’s start with trying to define natural selection. Here is the definition out of my dictionary.Taffer said:
Why don’t you give us a mathematical description of the sieve which would lead to these self replicating RNA molecules? Better yet, why don’t you demonstrate your sieve in the laboratory and generate a self replicating RNA molecule de novo.Taffer said:
The point you are missing is that there must be some type of beneficial effect from a molecule in order for it to be selected for. Until your sequence of mers produces some beneficial polymer, there is nothing to select for. How does a partially completed gene offer selective benefit to an organism?Taffer said:
You are correct that there is recombination of maternal and paternal alleles during the reduction division but it is the recombination or reuniting of haploid chromosomes which occurs at fertilization.Kleinman said:
When you die, you will understand what the soul is.Kleinman said:
Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.Kleinman said:
You mantra is so complex and nuanced that you have no explanation for a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. A better description for your mantra is it is incomprehensible and nonsensical, but don’t let that interfere with your belief system. The only thing that is entirely absent from this discussion is your mathematical description of a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.Kleinman said:
You are correct. I have not done the mathematics to disprove your theory. It is you and Dr Schneider who have done the mathematics to disprove your theory. The only thing I have done is plugged in the parameters that show what your mathematics reveals. You feel free to continue devaluing ev since that is the only argument you can make.Kleinman said:
de novo is Latin for “from the beginning”. If you are having trouble with my using this terminology, I will you the terminology “from the beginning” instead.Kleinman said:
There is no nuanced selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. Selection requires that something beneficial or harmful occurs. Mutations that are neutral offer no selection benefit for or against. What happens to the binding sites in ev when selection is turned off? What kind of analogy are you trying to make when you bias selection toward creatures with better binding? Biasing selection toward creatures that have better binding in ev only shows that you have a functional binding site. That is the point I am making about selection for a gene. It can only occur when you have some functionality to that gene. Until that gene offers function to the creature, there is no selection.Kleinman said:
Why Paul, I thought you had “simple observed fact” that explains your theory?Kleinman said:
If ev is not evolving binding sites from the beginning, what is ev simulating?Kleinman said:
I do know what I am talking about when I say that you have no selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. Why don’t you change your mantra to “random mutation and our lack of ability to describe selection”?Kleinman said:
What you are missing here kjkent1 is that RMNS is only observed to occur on a very limited basis. An existing virus can have a base substitution which gives it drug resistance, or a substitution can occur in hemoglobin that conveys malarial resistance under certain environmental conditions. The problem you evolutionarians have is that you extrapolate these very limited cases of RMNS to massive genome transformations. You have no selection process that would do this. Without a selection process, the transformations are subject to probability principles.Kleinman said:
Dr Schneider’s model shows that it would take billions of generations to evolve binding sites on any realistic length genome with his contrive selection process. Without a realistic selection process, how do you evolve the gene that goes along with the binding site? Perhaps you want to join Paul on his quest for the holy selection process?kjkent1 said:
Mathematical models can show what is possible and what is impossible. You are making observations and drawing conclusions from the observations that are not in agreement with attempts to mathematically model these observations. So either fix the model or reconsider your interpretations of your observations.kjkent1 said:
Explaining? No, I'd say the best one can manage is finding a worldview that can be logically defended. And the attributes your worldview allows in your definition of material is where the problem lies.
Yup, subject to the problem just mentioned.
That's an attribute of dualism.
I take the position that I cannot define god or any limits that might or might not apply. I suggest some possibles attributes are less probable than others.
I don't.
You may eventually notice that mirrors your own problem.
I'd call it the relativity of perception. I agree that we will never know with certainty what really 'is'.
For you, how would I know? What I do know is that "supernatural" is meaningless in my worldview.
Alan, you are really over the top with your comments above. I strongly recommend you consider a retraction and an apology to Paul.Unless, that is, you actually want Paul to sue you, so that you can prove ev and evolution mathematically impossible in a court of law. That would be a pretty interesting case.
I'm not missing anything, Alan, and that includes your increasing tendency toward defamatory statements.kleinman said:
I provided you with a link to a recent lecture from Dr. Leonard Susskind on the subject. Evidently, you chose to avoid reviewing it.kleinman said:
