info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A real, measurable example for Alan continued
210 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Rogers
Oct 14, 2017, 5:15:02 PM10/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
<Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
> > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> >
> > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
> >
> > > .
> > > Competition between different variants does not improve the absolute reproductive fitness of any of the variants. In fact, this competition reduces the absolute reproductive fitness of each of the competing variants which slows the rmns process for all the variants.
> >
> > You keep saying this. You don't demonstrate it in your model, though. In fact, you claim that the Kishony experiments validate your model. And the Kishony experiments only work because at each stage of drug concentration the most recent mutant outcompetes the earlier ones. Without that competition you'd need 10^19 metric tons of bacteria to get the quintuple mutant. So, in spite of your claims, competition vastly accelerates evolution.
> You must be joking! Do you really think that if Kishony put both e coli and staph on his agar plate that it would accelerate the evolution drug resistance in both lineages? Or if Lenski combined e coli and staph in his test tubes that his experiment would be accelerated? Competition from different variants reduces the ability of all the variants to increase in population size.
But Kishony's experiment is vastly accelerated. Consider a situation in which there was no competition between variants (ie, no drug on the plate). Then you'd need 10e40 replications to get the quintuple mutant. But *with* competition between variants (ie with increasing drug concentrations that cause the variants to have different relative fitness) only 5*10e8 replications are required. Sure looks like competition makes things work more efficiently.
> >
> >
> > > .
> > > If you want to consider the relative reproductive fitness of the different variants, you could look at a different problem. Consider the worldwide population of the different variants of malaria. These variants are only under drug selection pressure in the individual treated patients but when not under drug selection pressure, the drug-resistant variants may be less efficient replicators than the wild forms. If you remove a particular drug from usage, how long does it take for this drug-resistant variant to disappear from the worldwide population?
> >
> > This was actually done in Malawi. When use of chloroquine was discontinued and strictly enforced, chloroquine sensitive strains came back and constituted >90% of P. falciparm strains in circulation. These weren't new back mutations to chloroquine sensitivity, they were just the few CQ sensitive strains that had persisted which then came back towards fixation. No need to model "rm" here; it was only "ns" that was relevant.
> When did I ever say that ns has to work with rm. In fact, rmns is the exception in response to ns.
What do you mean by saying that random mutation and natural selection is the exception in response to natural selection? That is totally confused. Random mutation just happens, it's not a response to natural selection. And natural selection can hardly be an exception in response to natural selection.
You'd tie yourself in knots less often if you'd stop talking about "rmns" and talk about either random mutation or natural selection. They are quite separable; one can have mutation without selection, as in neutral drift, or selection without mutation, as in selection for or against pre-existing variants.
>Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
> >
> > >But when it comes to rmns, you need to use the absolute population size of the particular variant to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
> >
> > Yes, duh. But the probability of a specific mutation occurring is the "rm" part of rmns. You need to consider changes in the allele frequencies if you want to understand the "ns" part of rmns.
> You are obsessed with the relative reproductive fitness as the only way to view ns. Until you understand that absolute reproductive fitness determines the probability of a beneficial occurring, this phenomenon will confuse you.
I'm not confused in the least. The probability of a specific mutation or group of mutations is dependent on the number of replications. But in a world in which resources are limited and populations run into a carrying capacity of the environment rather than growing exponentially forever, relative allele frequencies characterize what happens in the population just fine. When you want to do your calculation of the probability that some specific combination of mutations will occur you just multiply the frequency of the starting variant by the population size.
> >
> > Why is it appropriate to use allele frequencies? In the first place, if you want to find absolute numbers of a variant, you just multiply the frequency of that variant by the population size. More importantly, though, all populations are resource limited. No population grows exponentially for more than a few generations, or the surface of the earth would be a solid mass of cockroaches. So most populations come to a rough equilibrium over time. If a better adapted variant appears, it will succeed at the expense of the wild type, and the relative frequencies will change.
> Kishony's colonies are growing exponentially (without competition from other colonies), that is why his experiment works so quickly.
Colonies don't compete anyway, or they wouldn't be separate colonies. But within the spot where the first mutant bacterium is forming a colony (ie in the lowest drug zone) it is competing, successfully, with wild type bacteria on the same spot. And it competes so successfully that by the time you can see the colony the mutant has gone to fixation.
>Lenski's experiment works far more slowly because the competition prevents exponential growth. But both experiments obey the mathematics of my model. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring depends on the ability of the variant to reproduce sufficiently.
It's not competition that prevents exponential growth in Lenski's experiment it's the carrying capacity of the chemostat.
> >
> > Your approach consistently ignores selection; instead you call it "the amplification phase of the rmns phenomenon," as though all lineages just kept growing exponentially indefinitely. I guess that makes sense if you think that evolution targets some specific, complex set of mutations to get from some starting point to a pre-defined goal; then your goal is to calculate how many replications it would take to reach that pre-specified goal. But that's not remotely what any biologist thinks. Mutations happen. Rarely, a mutation produces an organism whose relative fitness, yes, relative fitness, is greater than that of the wild type. Given a roughly fixed carrying capacity for that population, the new allele approaches fixation a a rate that depends on its relative fitness compared to the wild type. Multiple such mutants can occur in different organisms in a population and they will displace the wild type, recombine, go to fixation, all in ways that you'd be familiar with if you actually modelled "ns."
> Blah, blah, blah. Competition slows the evolutionary process by rmns. You ignore the empirical evidence and the laws of physics to think otherwise.
> >
> > You, however, are fixated on the calculating the probability of some pre-specified set of mutations. Such calculations do indeed depend on the "multiplication rule of probabilities," but they are only relevant in very extreme, man-made instances of intense, multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously. And these cases - multi-drug therapy for infections and cancer - are already well understood.
> I have good reason to be fixated on this, read this paper and understand why. http://www.evolvedmicrobe.com/Literature/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
Yes, once you're close to a peak on a fitness landscape there are limited pathways to the top. Didn't stop selection from getting there though. Sometime when you have time, you can tell us what you think the experiment was in that paper, and what you think it means.
> The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
Of course it is. How could you even think that the mathematics of natural selection would not depend on the intensity of selection? The mathematics of mutation doesn't depend on the intensity of selection, but the mathematics of selection certainly depends on the intensity of selection. How could it not?
> >
> > My 1980 edition of Goodman and Gilman's pharmacology textbook already explains the need for multi-drug therapy for TB to prevent the development of resistance during treatment. HAART incorporated triple drug therapy for HIV because everybody in the field knew about the ease with which HIV developed resistance to AZT monotherapy. WHO has been advocating multi-drug therapy for malaria for decades. Multi-drug therapy for cancer is routine. There are thousands of papers on multi-drug therapy in these situations. And all those papers have one interesting thing in common. None of them references your groundbeaking papers on the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. One might almost get the impression that all those evolutionists had actually figured it out without your help.
> Multidrug therapy is the correct way of addressing the problem of drug resistance. My mathematics gives the framework for determining how many drugs to use as a function of population size.
Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though.
>If clearly wasn't bleeping obvious to you that two drug therapy would still allow the emergence of resistance. It would have been bleeping obvious if you understood the basic science and mathematics of rmns.
I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this to understand.
First, the study was designed to measure the efficacy of WHO recommended treatments, not to evaluate new and potentially better ones. You can't get WHO to change treatment recommendations without showing them there's a problem with the current ones.
Second, and more important, you seem to have no clue about what factors impact the choice of anti-malarial regimens. Sure, if there were three cheap, side effect free drugs with identical, short half-lives, no problems in patient compliance in remote rural areas, and no pre-existing resistant strains, then everybody would be treating all malaria cases with those three drugs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation.
Third, you seem to know very little about the origins of anti-malarial resistance. Regardless of your model, anti-malarial resistance does not regularly occur by mutation from the wild type during the course of treatment in individual patients. I gave you papers before showing that resistance to chloroquine originated in only 2-3 individual cases and spread globally from them. Likewise resistance to Fansidar does not generally occur by mutation from the wild type during treatment; it originated in a handful of cases and spread globally from them. Indeed, resistance is highly unlikely to occur even in individuals adequately treated with only a single drug (except in the case of atovaquone where a single point mutation is all that's required for resistance, and nobody uses atovaquone monotherapy for exactly that reason). Instead resistance arises as parasites get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses and begin to accumulate sequential mutations a la Kishony. And they get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses for many reasons, poor quality drugs, poor storage conditions of the drugs in remote areas, the long half-lives of many antimalarials which means that newly innoculated parasites sometimes find themseolves in a host with the tail of a drug concentration from a previous treatment, counterfeit drugs, poor people trying to save drugs for future needs by only giving themselves half the pills prescribed. There are many reasons. But what the various causes of drug resistance in malaria have in common is that they have little to do with your model in which two single mutations to resistance to two drugs in an originally sensitive parasite lead to two-drug resistance because the parasite population was high enough to overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities.
<snip older stuff>
<Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
> > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> >
> > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
> >
> > > .
> > > Competition between different variants does not improve the absolute reproductive fitness of any of the variants. In fact, this competition reduces the absolute reproductive fitness of each of the competing variants which slows the rmns process for all the variants.
> >
> > You keep saying this. You don't demonstrate it in your model, though. In fact, you claim that the Kishony experiments validate your model. And the Kishony experiments only work because at each stage of drug concentration the most recent mutant outcompetes the earlier ones. Without that competition you'd need 10^19 metric tons of bacteria to get the quintuple mutant. So, in spite of your claims, competition vastly accelerates evolution.
> You must be joking! Do you really think that if Kishony put both e coli and staph on his agar plate that it would accelerate the evolution drug resistance in both lineages? Or if Lenski combined e coli and staph in his test tubes that his experiment would be accelerated? Competition from different variants reduces the ability of all the variants to increase in population size.
But Kishony's experiment is vastly accelerated. Consider a situation in which there was no competition between variants (ie, no drug on the plate). Then you'd need 10e40 replications to get the quintuple mutant. But *with* competition between variants (ie with increasing drug concentrations that cause the variants to have different relative fitness) only 5*10e8 replications are required. Sure looks like competition makes things work more efficiently.
> >
> >
> > > .
> > > If you want to consider the relative reproductive fitness of the different variants, you could look at a different problem. Consider the worldwide population of the different variants of malaria. These variants are only under drug selection pressure in the individual treated patients but when not under drug selection pressure, the drug-resistant variants may be less efficient replicators than the wild forms. If you remove a particular drug from usage, how long does it take for this drug-resistant variant to disappear from the worldwide population?
> >
> > This was actually done in Malawi. When use of chloroquine was discontinued and strictly enforced, chloroquine sensitive strains came back and constituted >90% of P. falciparm strains in circulation. These weren't new back mutations to chloroquine sensitivity, they were just the few CQ sensitive strains that had persisted which then came back towards fixation. No need to model "rm" here; it was only "ns" that was relevant.
> When did I ever say that ns has to work with rm. In fact, rmns is the exception in response to ns.
What do you mean by saying that random mutation and natural selection is the exception in response to natural selection? That is totally confused. Random mutation just happens, it's not a response to natural selection. And natural selection can hardly be an exception in response to natural selection.
You'd tie yourself in knots less often if you'd stop talking about "rmns" and talk about either random mutation or natural selection. They are quite separable; one can have mutation without selection, as in neutral drift, or selection without mutation, as in selection for or against pre-existing variants.
>Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
> >
> > >But when it comes to rmns, you need to use the absolute population size of the particular variant to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
> >
> > Yes, duh. But the probability of a specific mutation occurring is the "rm" part of rmns. You need to consider changes in the allele frequencies if you want to understand the "ns" part of rmns.
> You are obsessed with the relative reproductive fitness as the only way to view ns. Until you understand that absolute reproductive fitness determines the probability of a beneficial occurring, this phenomenon will confuse you.
I'm not confused in the least. The probability of a specific mutation or group of mutations is dependent on the number of replications. But in a world in which resources are limited and populations run into a carrying capacity of the environment rather than growing exponentially forever, relative allele frequencies characterize what happens in the population just fine. When you want to do your calculation of the probability that some specific combination of mutations will occur you just multiply the frequency of the starting variant by the population size.
> >
> > Why is it appropriate to use allele frequencies? In the first place, if you want to find absolute numbers of a variant, you just multiply the frequency of that variant by the population size. More importantly, though, all populations are resource limited. No population grows exponentially for more than a few generations, or the surface of the earth would be a solid mass of cockroaches. So most populations come to a rough equilibrium over time. If a better adapted variant appears, it will succeed at the expense of the wild type, and the relative frequencies will change.
> Kishony's colonies are growing exponentially (without competition from other colonies), that is why his experiment works so quickly.
Colonies don't compete anyway, or they wouldn't be separate colonies. But within the spot where the first mutant bacterium is forming a colony (ie in the lowest drug zone) it is competing, successfully, with wild type bacteria on the same spot. And it competes so successfully that by the time you can see the colony the mutant has gone to fixation.
>Lenski's experiment works far more slowly because the competition prevents exponential growth. But both experiments obey the mathematics of my model. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring depends on the ability of the variant to reproduce sufficiently.
It's not competition that prevents exponential growth in Lenski's experiment it's the carrying capacity of the chemostat.
> >
> > Your approach consistently ignores selection; instead you call it "the amplification phase of the rmns phenomenon," as though all lineages just kept growing exponentially indefinitely. I guess that makes sense if you think that evolution targets some specific, complex set of mutations to get from some starting point to a pre-defined goal; then your goal is to calculate how many replications it would take to reach that pre-specified goal. But that's not remotely what any biologist thinks. Mutations happen. Rarely, a mutation produces an organism whose relative fitness, yes, relative fitness, is greater than that of the wild type. Given a roughly fixed carrying capacity for that population, the new allele approaches fixation a a rate that depends on its relative fitness compared to the wild type. Multiple such mutants can occur in different organisms in a population and they will displace the wild type, recombine, go to fixation, all in ways that you'd be familiar with if you actually modelled "ns."
> Blah, blah, blah. Competition slows the evolutionary process by rmns. You ignore the empirical evidence and the laws of physics to think otherwise.
> >
> > You, however, are fixated on the calculating the probability of some pre-specified set of mutations. Such calculations do indeed depend on the "multiplication rule of probabilities," but they are only relevant in very extreme, man-made instances of intense, multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously. And these cases - multi-drug therapy for infections and cancer - are already well understood.
> I have good reason to be fixated on this, read this paper and understand why. http://www.evolvedmicrobe.com/Literature/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
Yes, once you're close to a peak on a fitness landscape there are limited pathways to the top. Didn't stop selection from getting there though. Sometime when you have time, you can tell us what you think the experiment was in that paper, and what you think it means.
> The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
Of course it is. How could you even think that the mathematics of natural selection would not depend on the intensity of selection? The mathematics of mutation doesn't depend on the intensity of selection, but the mathematics of selection certainly depends on the intensity of selection. How could it not?
> >
> > My 1980 edition of Goodman and Gilman's pharmacology textbook already explains the need for multi-drug therapy for TB to prevent the development of resistance during treatment. HAART incorporated triple drug therapy for HIV because everybody in the field knew about the ease with which HIV developed resistance to AZT monotherapy. WHO has been advocating multi-drug therapy for malaria for decades. Multi-drug therapy for cancer is routine. There are thousands of papers on multi-drug therapy in these situations. And all those papers have one interesting thing in common. None of them references your groundbeaking papers on the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. One might almost get the impression that all those evolutionists had actually figured it out without your help.
> Multidrug therapy is the correct way of addressing the problem of drug resistance. My mathematics gives the framework for determining how many drugs to use as a function of population size.
Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though.
>If clearly wasn't bleeping obvious to you that two drug therapy would still allow the emergence of resistance. It would have been bleeping obvious if you understood the basic science and mathematics of rmns.
I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this to understand.
First, the study was designed to measure the efficacy of WHO recommended treatments, not to evaluate new and potentially better ones. You can't get WHO to change treatment recommendations without showing them there's a problem with the current ones.
Second, and more important, you seem to have no clue about what factors impact the choice of anti-malarial regimens. Sure, if there were three cheap, side effect free drugs with identical, short half-lives, no problems in patient compliance in remote rural areas, and no pre-existing resistant strains, then everybody would be treating all malaria cases with those three drugs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation.
Third, you seem to know very little about the origins of anti-malarial resistance. Regardless of your model, anti-malarial resistance does not regularly occur by mutation from the wild type during the course of treatment in individual patients. I gave you papers before showing that resistance to chloroquine originated in only 2-3 individual cases and spread globally from them. Likewise resistance to Fansidar does not generally occur by mutation from the wild type during treatment; it originated in a handful of cases and spread globally from them. Indeed, resistance is highly unlikely to occur even in individuals adequately treated with only a single drug (except in the case of atovaquone where a single point mutation is all that's required for resistance, and nobody uses atovaquone monotherapy for exactly that reason). Instead resistance arises as parasites get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses and begin to accumulate sequential mutations a la Kishony. And they get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses for many reasons, poor quality drugs, poor storage conditions of the drugs in remote areas, the long half-lives of many antimalarials which means that newly innoculated parasites sometimes find themseolves in a host with the tail of a drug concentration from a previous treatment, counterfeit drugs, poor people trying to save drugs for future needs by only giving themselves half the pills prescribed. There are many reasons. But what the various causes of drug resistance in malaria have in common is that they have little to do with your model in which two single mutations to resistance to two drugs in an originally sensitive parasite lead to two-drug resistance because the parasite population was high enough to overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities.
<snip older stuff>
r3p...@gmail.com
Oct 15, 2017, 1:35:03 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
4. How do new species appear in the wild?
Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
4. How do new species appear in the wild?
Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
jillery
Oct 15, 2017, 2:35:03 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:30:45 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker.
Are you really so surprised?
>Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire
Wolffan
Oct 15, 2017, 2:55:03 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<773ed0eb-8a18-4e2a...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker.
you are.
(in article<773ed0eb-8a18-4e2a...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker.
r3p...@gmail.com
Oct 15, 2017, 4:50:02 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction. So Alan's sudden attack on my thinking was a gift, an opportunity to show that he is in fact the confused thinker. I predict he cannot answer any question logically. He will of course disappear. Goes to show, when the chips are down, that his credentials and the knowledge these represent, cannot save him from my points based on rudimentary logic.
Ray
Wolffan
Oct 15, 2017, 5:45:02 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
> My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
> contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
any contradictions. And, yes, there are atheist total fucking fruitcakes,
though very few of them are as totally wigged out as you are.
jillery
Oct 15, 2017, 7:40:02 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:48:34 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:30:45 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker.
>>
>>
>> Are you really so surprised?
>>
>>
>> > In response:
>> >
>> >Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
>> >
>> >1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
>> >
>> >2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
>> >
>> >3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
>> >
>> >4. How do new species appear in the wild?
>> >
>> >Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
>> >
>> >Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
>
>On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:30:45 -0700 (PDT), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker.
>>
>>
>> Are you really so surprised?
>>
>>
>> > In response:
>> >
>> >Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
>> >
>> >1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
>> >
>> >2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
>> >
>> >3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
>> >
>> >4. How do new species appear in the wild?
>> >
>> >Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
>> >
>> >Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
>
>Not a bit.
>
>My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction. So Alan's sudden attack on my thinking was a gift, an opportunity to show that he is in fact the confused thinker. I predict he cannot answer any question logically. He will of course disappear. Goes to show, when the chips are down, that his credentials and the knowledge these represent, cannot save him from my points based on rudimentary logic.
>
>Ray
The good DrDr is hardly an upstanding representative of an
>
>My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction. So Alan's sudden attack on my thinking was a gift, an opportunity to show that he is in fact the confused thinker. I predict he cannot answer any question logically. He will of course disappear. Goes to show, when the chips are down, that his credentials and the knowledge these represent, cannot save him from my points based on rudimentary logic.
>
>Ray
Evolutionist, theistic or otherwise. Just sayin'.
Alan Kleinman MD PhD
Oct 15, 2017, 8:15:02 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 2:15:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> <Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
>
> > > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > >
> > > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> > It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
>
> Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
And that's the key for understanding how rmns works.
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> <Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
>
> > > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > >
> > > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> > It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
>
> Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
>
> > >
> > > > .
> > > > Competition between different variants does not improve the absolute reproductive fitness of any of the variants. In fact, this competition reduces the absolute reproductive fitness of each of the competing variants which slows the rmns process for all the variants.
> > >
> > > You keep saying this. You don't demonstrate it in your model, though. In fact, you claim that the Kishony experiments validate your model. And the Kishony experiments only work because at each stage of drug concentration the most recent mutant outcompetes the earlier ones. Without that competition you'd need 10^19 metric tons of bacteria to get the quintuple mutant. So, in spite of your claims, competition vastly accelerates evolution.
> > You must be joking! Do you really think that if Kishony put both e coli and staph on his agar plate that it would accelerate the evolution drug resistance in both lineages? Or if Lenski combined e coli and staph in his test tubes that his experiment would be accelerated? Competition from different variants reduces the ability of all the variants to increase in population size.
>
> But Kishony's experiment is vastly accelerated. Consider a situation in which there was no competition between variants (ie, no drug on the plate). Then you'd need 10e40 replications to get the quintuple mutant. But *with* competition between variants (ie with increasing drug concentrations that cause the variants to have different relative fitness) only 5*10e8 replications are required. Sure looks like competition makes things work more efficiently.
I'll say it again. rmns works most efficiently when only a single targeted selection pressure targets a single gene. The lineage must deal with only a single instance of the multiplication rule and in the case of the Kishony experiment, no competition to slow amplification, essentially no limitation on resources and no other selection pressures which would introduce additional instances of the multiplication rule forcing much higher amplification for the multiple simultaneous beneficial mutations. If you want to see a clinical example of the Kishony experiment, read this paper:
> > >
> > > > .
> > > > Competition between different variants does not improve the absolute reproductive fitness of any of the variants. In fact, this competition reduces the absolute reproductive fitness of each of the competing variants which slows the rmns process for all the variants.
> > >
> > > You keep saying this. You don't demonstrate it in your model, though. In fact, you claim that the Kishony experiments validate your model. And the Kishony experiments only work because at each stage of drug concentration the most recent mutant outcompetes the earlier ones. Without that competition you'd need 10^19 metric tons of bacteria to get the quintuple mutant. So, in spite of your claims, competition vastly accelerates evolution.
> > You must be joking! Do you really think that if Kishony put both e coli and staph on his agar plate that it would accelerate the evolution drug resistance in both lineages? Or if Lenski combined e coli and staph in his test tubes that his experiment would be accelerated? Competition from different variants reduces the ability of all the variants to increase in population size.
>
> But Kishony's experiment is vastly accelerated. Consider a situation in which there was no competition between variants (ie, no drug on the plate). Then you'd need 10e40 replications to get the quintuple mutant. But *with* competition between variants (ie with increasing drug concentrations that cause the variants to have different relative fitness) only 5*10e8 replications are required. Sure looks like competition makes things work more efficiently.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948664/
And then you can tell me how well versed the full-timers in the medical system are on how rmns works. There many studies like this using single-drug therapy in immune-compromised patients and resistance appearing.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > .
> > > > If you want to consider the relative reproductive fitness of the different variants, you could look at a different problem. Consider the worldwide population of the different variants of malaria. These variants are only under drug selection pressure in the individual treated patients but when not under drug selection pressure, the drug-resistant variants may be less efficient replicators than the wild forms. If you remove a particular drug from usage, how long does it take for this drug-resistant variant to disappear from the worldwide population?
> > >
> > > This was actually done in Malawi. When use of chloroquine was discontinued and strictly enforced, chloroquine sensitive strains came back and constituted >90% of P. falciparm strains in circulation. These weren't new back mutations to chloroquine sensitivity, they were just the few CQ sensitive strains that had persisted which then came back towards fixation. No need to model "rm" here; it was only "ns" that was relevant.
> > When did I ever say that ns has to work with rm. In fact, rmns is the exception in response to ns.
>
> What do you mean by saying that random mutation and natural selection is the exception in response to natural selection? That is totally confused. Random mutation just happens, it's not a response to natural selection. And natural selection can hardly be an exception in response to natural selection.
Directional selection is rare, it only occurs in the special instances when physicians use single targeted selection pressures targeting single genes or in agriculture where single targeted insecticides and pesticides are used. If the selection pressures don't drive the population to extinction, the usual response is drift.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > .
> > > > If you want to consider the relative reproductive fitness of the different variants, you could look at a different problem. Consider the worldwide population of the different variants of malaria. These variants are only under drug selection pressure in the individual treated patients but when not under drug selection pressure, the drug-resistant variants may be less efficient replicators than the wild forms. If you remove a particular drug from usage, how long does it take for this drug-resistant variant to disappear from the worldwide population?
> > >
> > > This was actually done in Malawi. When use of chloroquine was discontinued and strictly enforced, chloroquine sensitive strains came back and constituted >90% of P. falciparm strains in circulation. These weren't new back mutations to chloroquine sensitivity, they were just the few CQ sensitive strains that had persisted which then came back towards fixation. No need to model "rm" here; it was only "ns" that was relevant.
> > When did I ever say that ns has to work with rm. In fact, rmns is the exception in response to ns.
>
> What do you mean by saying that random mutation and natural selection is the exception in response to natural selection? That is totally confused. Random mutation just happens, it's not a response to natural selection. And natural selection can hardly be an exception in response to natural selection.
>
> You'd tie yourself in knots less often if you'd stop talking about "rmns" and talk about either random mutation or natural selection. They are quite separable; one can have mutation without selection, as in neutral drift, or selection without mutation, as in selection for or against pre-existing variants.
I'm not in a knot at all. I understand the physics and mathematics of rmns quite well. This mathematics correlates with all real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. Do you want to try again and post a real, measurable and repeatable example which contradicts this model?
> You'd tie yourself in knots less often if you'd stop talking about "rmns" and talk about either random mutation or natural selection. They are quite separable; one can have mutation without selection, as in neutral drift, or selection without mutation, as in selection for or against pre-existing variants.
>
> >Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
>
> Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
But the variants care quite a bit about the complexity of the selection conditions and the physical environment because that determines whether any variants have a reasonable probability of evolving to those selection conditions, you know, that 19 metric ton problem.
> >Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
>
> Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
>
> > >
> > > >But when it comes to rmns, you need to use the absolute population size of the particular variant to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
> > >
> > > Yes, duh. But the probability of a specific mutation occurring is the "rm" part of rmns. You need to consider changes in the allele frequencies if you want to understand the "ns" part of rmns.
> > You are obsessed with the relative reproductive fitness as the only way to view ns. Until you understand that absolute reproductive fitness determines the probability of a beneficial occurring, this phenomenon will confuse you.
>
> I'm not confused in the least. The probability of a specific mutation or group of mutations is dependent on the number of replications. But in a world in which resources are limited and populations run into a carrying capacity of the environment rather than growing exponentially forever, relative allele frequencies characterize what happens in the population just fine. When you want to do your calculation of the probability that some specific combination of mutations will occur you just multiply the frequency of the starting variant by the population size.
See what happens if you try to run the Kishony experiment on a standard size petri dish. All the factors you list reduce the probability of an evolutionary process by rmns occurring. If amplification does not occur, the probability of the next evolutionary step by rmns drops to near zero.
> > >
> > > >But when it comes to rmns, you need to use the absolute population size of the particular variant to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
> > >
> > > Yes, duh. But the probability of a specific mutation occurring is the "rm" part of rmns. You need to consider changes in the allele frequencies if you want to understand the "ns" part of rmns.
> > You are obsessed with the relative reproductive fitness as the only way to view ns. Until you understand that absolute reproductive fitness determines the probability of a beneficial occurring, this phenomenon will confuse you.
>
> I'm not confused in the least. The probability of a specific mutation or group of mutations is dependent on the number of replications. But in a world in which resources are limited and populations run into a carrying capacity of the environment rather than growing exponentially forever, relative allele frequencies characterize what happens in the population just fine. When you want to do your calculation of the probability that some specific combination of mutations will occur you just multiply the frequency of the starting variant by the population size.
>
> > >
> > > Why is it appropriate to use allele frequencies? In the first place, if you want to find absolute numbers of a variant, you just multiply the frequency of that variant by the population size. More importantly, though, all populations are resource limited. No population grows exponentially for more than a few generations, or the surface of the earth would be a solid mass of cockroaches. So most populations come to a rough equilibrium over time. If a better adapted variant appears, it will succeed at the expense of the wild type, and the relative frequencies will change.
>
> > Kishony's colonies are growing exponentially (without competition from other colonies), that is why his experiment works so quickly.
>
> Colonies don't compete anyway, or they wouldn't be separate colonies. But within the spot where the first mutant bacterium is forming a colony (ie in the lowest drug zone) it is competing, successfully, with wild type bacteria on the same spot. And it competes so successfully that by the time you can see the colony the mutant has gone to fixation.
What makes you think that variants within a colony are not competing with other variants in that colony?
> > >
> > > Why is it appropriate to use allele frequencies? In the first place, if you want to find absolute numbers of a variant, you just multiply the frequency of that variant by the population size. More importantly, though, all populations are resource limited. No population grows exponentially for more than a few generations, or the surface of the earth would be a solid mass of cockroaches. So most populations come to a rough equilibrium over time. If a better adapted variant appears, it will succeed at the expense of the wild type, and the relative frequencies will change.
>
> > Kishony's colonies are growing exponentially (without competition from other colonies), that is why his experiment works so quickly.
>
> Colonies don't compete anyway, or they wouldn't be separate colonies. But within the spot where the first mutant bacterium is forming a colony (ie in the lowest drug zone) it is competing, successfully, with wild type bacteria on the same spot. And it competes so successfully that by the time you can see the colony the mutant has gone to fixation.
>
> >Lenski's experiment works far more slowly because the competition prevents exponential growth. But both experiments obey the mathematics of my model. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring depends on the ability of the variant to reproduce sufficiently.
>
> It's not competition that prevents exponential growth in Lenski's experiment it's the carrying capacity of the chemostat.
So Lenski doesn't replenish the growth media?
> >Lenski's experiment works far more slowly because the competition prevents exponential growth. But both experiments obey the mathematics of my model. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring depends on the ability of the variant to reproduce sufficiently.
>
> It's not competition that prevents exponential growth in Lenski's experiment it's the carrying capacity of the chemostat.
>
> > >
> > > Your approach consistently ignores selection; instead you call it "the amplification phase of the rmns phenomenon," as though all lineages just kept growing exponentially indefinitely. I guess that makes sense if you think that evolution targets some specific, complex set of mutations to get from some starting point to a pre-defined goal; then your goal is to calculate how many replications it would take to reach that pre-specified goal. But that's not remotely what any biologist thinks. Mutations happen. Rarely, a mutation produces an organism whose relative fitness, yes, relative fitness, is greater than that of the wild type. Given a roughly fixed carrying capacity for that population, the new allele approaches fixation a a rate that depends on its relative fitness compared to the wild type. Multiple such mutants can occur in different organisms in a population and they will displace the wild type, recombine, go to fixation, all in ways that you'd be familiar with if you actually modelled "ns."
> > Blah, blah, blah. Competition slows the evolutionary process by rmns. You ignore the empirical evidence and the laws of physics to think otherwise.
> > >
> > > You, however, are fixated on the calculating the probability of some pre-specified set of mutations. Such calculations do indeed depend on the "multiplication rule of probabilities," but they are only relevant in very extreme, man-made instances of intense, multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously. And these cases - multi-drug therapy for infections and cancer - are already well understood.
> > I have good reason to be fixated on this, read this paper and understand why. http://www.evolvedmicrobe.com/Literature/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
>
> Yes, once you're close to a peak on a fitness landscape there are limited pathways to the top. Didn't stop selection from getting there though. Sometime when you have time, you can tell us what you think the experiment was in that paper, and what you think it means.
How well do you think Weinreich's experiment would work with 2 or 3 drugs instead of his single drug? What if he used 5 drugs, is that 19 metric tons?
> > >
> > > Your approach consistently ignores selection; instead you call it "the amplification phase of the rmns phenomenon," as though all lineages just kept growing exponentially indefinitely. I guess that makes sense if you think that evolution targets some specific, complex set of mutations to get from some starting point to a pre-defined goal; then your goal is to calculate how many replications it would take to reach that pre-specified goal. But that's not remotely what any biologist thinks. Mutations happen. Rarely, a mutation produces an organism whose relative fitness, yes, relative fitness, is greater than that of the wild type. Given a roughly fixed carrying capacity for that population, the new allele approaches fixation a a rate that depends on its relative fitness compared to the wild type. Multiple such mutants can occur in different organisms in a population and they will displace the wild type, recombine, go to fixation, all in ways that you'd be familiar with if you actually modelled "ns."
> > Blah, blah, blah. Competition slows the evolutionary process by rmns. You ignore the empirical evidence and the laws of physics to think otherwise.
> > >
> > > You, however, are fixated on the calculating the probability of some pre-specified set of mutations. Such calculations do indeed depend on the "multiplication rule of probabilities," but they are only relevant in very extreme, man-made instances of intense, multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously. And these cases - multi-drug therapy for infections and cancer - are already well understood.
> > I have good reason to be fixated on this, read this paper and understand why. http://www.evolvedmicrobe.com/Literature/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
>
> Yes, once you're close to a peak on a fitness landscape there are limited pathways to the top. Didn't stop selection from getting there though. Sometime when you have time, you can tell us what you think the experiment was in that paper, and what you think it means.
>
> > The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
>
> Of course it is. How could you even think that the mathematics of natural selection would not depend on the intensity of selection? The mathematics of mutation doesn't depend on the intensity of selection, but the mathematics of selection certainly depends on the intensity of selection. How could it not?
Your own reference showed that most of the bacteria evolved resistance independent of the MIC. Don't you read your own references?
> > The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
>
> Of course it is. How could you even think that the mathematics of natural selection would not depend on the intensity of selection? The mathematics of mutation doesn't depend on the intensity of selection, but the mathematics of selection certainly depends on the intensity of selection. How could it not?
>
> > >
> > > My 1980 edition of Goodman and Gilman's pharmacology textbook already explains the need for multi-drug therapy for TB to prevent the development of resistance during treatment. HAART incorporated triple drug therapy for HIV because everybody in the field knew about the ease with which HIV developed resistance to AZT monotherapy. WHO has been advocating multi-drug therapy for malaria for decades. Multi-drug therapy for cancer is routine. There are thousands of papers on multi-drug therapy in these situations. And all those papers have one interesting thing in common. None of them references your groundbeaking papers on the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. One might almost get the impression that all those evolutionists had actually figured it out without your help.
> > Multidrug therapy is the correct way of addressing the problem of drug resistance. My mathematics gives the framework for determining how many drugs to use as a function of population size.
>
> Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though.
You had better explain that to clinicians using single-drug therapy for prophylaxis in immune-compromised patients. And of course, I read in your paper that two drug therapy was adequate for preventing the de novo evolution of resistance when treating malaria. And don't forget the targeted therapy that oncologists are developing. It is totally reasonable to assume that these therapies will be 100% lethal to all variants in the cancer cell line, that is reasonable if you don't understand how rmns works.
> > >
> > > My 1980 edition of Goodman and Gilman's pharmacology textbook already explains the need for multi-drug therapy for TB to prevent the development of resistance during treatment. HAART incorporated triple drug therapy for HIV because everybody in the field knew about the ease with which HIV developed resistance to AZT monotherapy. WHO has been advocating multi-drug therapy for malaria for decades. Multi-drug therapy for cancer is routine. There are thousands of papers on multi-drug therapy in these situations. And all those papers have one interesting thing in common. None of them references your groundbeaking papers on the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. One might almost get the impression that all those evolutionists had actually figured it out without your help.
> > Multidrug therapy is the correct way of addressing the problem of drug resistance. My mathematics gives the framework for determining how many drugs to use as a function of population size.
>
> Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though.
>
>
> >If clearly wasn't bleeping obvious to you that two drug therapy would still allow the emergence of resistance. It would have been bleeping obvious if you understood the basic science and mathematics of rmns.
>
> I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this to understand.
>
> First, the study was designed to measure the efficacy of WHO recommended treatments, not to evaluate new and potentially better ones. You can't get WHO to change treatment recommendations without showing them there's a problem with the current ones.
So I guess when you claim "Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though." You didn't mean to include the WHO. When are you going to tell us the dog ate your homework?
>
> >If clearly wasn't bleeping obvious to you that two drug therapy would still allow the emergence of resistance. It would have been bleeping obvious if you understood the basic science and mathematics of rmns.
>
> I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this to understand.
>
> First, the study was designed to measure the efficacy of WHO recommended treatments, not to evaluate new and potentially better ones. You can't get WHO to change treatment recommendations without showing them there's a problem with the current ones.
>
> Second, and more important, you seem to have no clue about what factors impact the choice of anti-malarial regimens. Sure, if there were three cheap, side effect free drugs with identical, short half-lives, no problems in patient compliance in remote rural areas, and no pre-existing resistant strains, then everybody would be treating all malaria cases with those three drugs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation.
It appears that you don't have a clue either. But you do have a lot of excuses.
> Second, and more important, you seem to have no clue about what factors impact the choice of anti-malarial regimens. Sure, if there were three cheap, side effect free drugs with identical, short half-lives, no problems in patient compliance in remote rural areas, and no pre-existing resistant strains, then everybody would be treating all malaria cases with those three drugs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation.
>
> Third, you seem to know very little about the origins of anti-malarial resistance. Regardless of your model, anti-malarial resistance does not regularly occur by mutation from the wild type during the course of treatment in individual patients. I gave you papers before showing that resistance to chloroquine originated in only 2-3 individual cases and spread globally from them. Likewise resistance to Fansidar does not generally occur by mutation from the wild type during treatment; it originated in a handful of cases and spread globally from them. Indeed, resistance is highly unlikely to occur even in individuals adequately treated with only a single drug (except in the case of atovaquone where a single point mutation is all that's required for resistance, and nobody uses atovaquone monotherapy for exactly that reason). Instead resistance arises as parasites get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses and begin to accumulate sequential mutations a la Kishony. And they get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses for many reasons, poor quality drugs, poor storage conditions of the drugs in remote areas, the long half-lives of many antimalarials which means that newly innoculated parasites sometimes find themseolves in a host with the tail of a drug concentration from a previous treatment, counterfeit drugs, poor people trying to save drugs for future needs by only giving themselves half the pills prescribed. There are many reasons. But what the various causes of drug resistance in malaria have in common is that they have little to do with your model in which two single mutations to resistance to two drugs in an originally sensitive parasite lead to two-drug resistance because the parasite population was high enough to overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities.
Blah, blah, blah. What makes you think that rmns works any different with malaria than for e coli or any other replicator? rmns is nothing more than nested binomial probability problems. There are other ways a replicator can become resistant to drugs without rmns. Pseudomonas has an efflux pump which can give this bacteria resistance to drugs it has never been exposed to.
> Third, you seem to know very little about the origins of anti-malarial resistance. Regardless of your model, anti-malarial resistance does not regularly occur by mutation from the wild type during the course of treatment in individual patients. I gave you papers before showing that resistance to chloroquine originated in only 2-3 individual cases and spread globally from them. Likewise resistance to Fansidar does not generally occur by mutation from the wild type during treatment; it originated in a handful of cases and spread globally from them. Indeed, resistance is highly unlikely to occur even in individuals adequately treated with only a single drug (except in the case of atovaquone where a single point mutation is all that's required for resistance, and nobody uses atovaquone monotherapy for exactly that reason). Instead resistance arises as parasites get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses and begin to accumulate sequential mutations a la Kishony. And they get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses for many reasons, poor quality drugs, poor storage conditions of the drugs in remote areas, the long half-lives of many antimalarials which means that newly innoculated parasites sometimes find themseolves in a host with the tail of a drug concentration from a previous treatment, counterfeit drugs, poor people trying to save drugs for future needs by only giving themselves half the pills prescribed. There are many reasons. But what the various causes of drug resistance in malaria have in common is that they have little to do with your model in which two single mutations to resistance to two drugs in an originally sensitive parasite lead to two-drug resistance because the parasite population was high enough to overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities.
>
> <snip older stuff>
Alan Kleinman MD PhD
Oct 15, 2017, 8:20:02 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill Rogers
Oct 15, 2017, 11:35:02 PM10/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 2:15:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > <Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
> >
> > > > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> > > It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> >
> > Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
> And that's the key for understanding how rmns works.
No, that's the key for how rm works. It has nothing to do with how ns works.
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 2:15:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > <Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
> >
> > > > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> > > It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> >
> > Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
> And that's the key for understanding how rmns works.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > > Competition between different variants does not improve the absolute reproductive fitness of any of the variants. In fact, this competition reduces the absolute reproductive fitness of each of the competing variants which slows the rmns process for all the variants.
> > > >
> > > > You keep saying this. You don't demonstrate it in your model, though. In fact, you claim that the Kishony experiments validate your model. And the Kishony experiments only work because at each stage of drug concentration the most recent mutant outcompetes the earlier ones. Without that competition you'd need 10^19 metric tons of bacteria to get the quintuple mutant. So, in spite of your claims, competition vastly accelerates evolution.
> > > You must be joking! Do you really think that if Kishony put both e coli and staph on his agar plate that it would accelerate the evolution drug resistance in both lineages? Or if Lenski combined e coli and staph in his test tubes that his experiment would be accelerated? Competition from different variants reduces the ability of all the variants to increase in population size.
> >
> > But Kishony's experiment is vastly accelerated. Consider a situation in which there was no competition between variants (ie, no drug on the plate). Then you'd need 10e40 replications to get the quintuple mutant. But *with* competition between variants (ie with increasing drug concentrations that cause the variants to have different relative fitness) only 5*10e8 replications are required. Sure looks like competition makes things work more efficiently.
> I'll say it again. rmns works most efficiently when only a single targeted selection pressure targets a single gene. The lineage must deal with only a single instance of the multiplication rule and in the case of the Kishony experiment, no competition to slow amplification, essentially no limitation on resources and no other selection pressures which would introduce additional instances of the multiplication rule forcing much higher amplification for the multiple simultaneous beneficial mutations.
>If you want to see a clinical example of the Kishony experiment, read this paper:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948664/
> And then you can tell me how well versed the full-timers in the medical system are on how rmns works. There many studies like this using single-drug therapy in immune-compromised patients and resistance appearing.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > > If you want to consider the relative reproductive fitness of the different variants, you could look at a different problem. Consider the worldwide population of the different variants of malaria. These variants are only under drug selection pressure in the individual treated patients but when not under drug selection pressure, the drug-resistant variants may be less efficient replicators than the wild forms. If you remove a particular drug from usage, how long does it take for this drug-resistant variant to disappear from the worldwide population?
> > > >
> > > > This was actually done in Malawi. When use of chloroquine was discontinued and strictly enforced, chloroquine sensitive strains came back and constituted >90% of P. falciparm strains in circulation. These weren't new back mutations to chloroquine sensitivity, they were just the few CQ sensitive strains that had persisted which then came back towards fixation. No need to model "rm" here; it was only "ns" that was relevant.
> > > When did I ever say that ns has to work with rm. In fact, rmns is the exception in response to ns.
> >
> > What do you mean by saying that random mutation and natural selection is the exception in response to natural selection? That is totally confused. Random mutation just happens, it's not a response to natural selection. And natural selection can hardly be an exception in response to natural selection.
> Directional selection is rare, it only occurs in the special instances when physicians use single targeted selection pressures targeting single genes or in agriculture where single targeted insecticides and pesticides are used. If the selection pressures don't drive the population to extinction, the usual response is drift.
It's interesting that you think selection is rare in nature. You're completely wrong, but at least it explains why all your examples of what you call rmns come from medicine or agriculture.
> >
> > You'd tie yourself in knots less often if you'd stop talking about "rmns" and talk about either random mutation or natural selection. They are quite separable; one can have mutation without selection, as in neutral drift, or selection without mutation, as in selection for or against pre-existing variants.
> I'm not in a knot at all. I understand the physics and mathematics of rmns quite well. This mathematics correlates with all real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. Do you want to try again and post a real, measurable and repeatable example which contradicts this model?
> >
> > >Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
> >
> > Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
> But the variants care quite a bit about the complexity of the selection conditions and the physical environment because that determines whether any variants have a reasonable probability of evolving to those selection conditions, you know, that 19 metric ton problem.
So go ahead and show us how you model natural selection. We all know how to calculate the joint probabilities of multiple mutations. We all see that you know that, too. But you seem incapable of understanding that that's all you've been modelling.
> > >Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
> >
> > Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
> But the variants care quite a bit about the complexity of the selection conditions and the physical environment because that determines whether any variants have a reasonable probability of evolving to those selection conditions, you know, that 19 metric ton problem.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >But when it comes to rmns, you need to use the absolute population size of the particular variant to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, duh. But the probability of a specific mutation occurring is the "rm" part of rmns. You need to consider changes in the allele frequencies if you want to understand the "ns" part of rmns.
> > > You are obsessed with the relative reproductive fitness as the only way to view ns. Until you understand that absolute reproductive fitness determines the probability of a beneficial occurring, this phenomenon will confuse you.
> >
> > I'm not confused in the least. The probability of a specific mutation or group of mutations is dependent on the number of replications. But in a world in which resources are limited and populations run into a carrying capacity of the environment rather than growing exponentially forever, relative allele frequencies characterize what happens in the population just fine. When you want to do your calculation of the probability that some specific combination of mutations will occur you just multiply the frequency of the starting variant by the population size.
> See what happens if you try to run the Kishony experiment on a standard size petri dish. All the factors you list reduce the probability of an evolutionary process by rmns occurring. If amplification does not occur, the probability of the next evolutionary step by rmns drops to near zero.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Why is it appropriate to use allele frequencies? In the first place, if you want to find absolute numbers of a variant, you just multiply the frequency of that variant by the population size. More importantly, though, all populations are resource limited. No population grows exponentially for more than a few generations, or the surface of the earth would be a solid mass of cockroaches. So most populations come to a rough equilibrium over time. If a better adapted variant appears, it will succeed at the expense of the wild type, and the relative frequencies will change.
> >
> > > Kishony's colonies are growing exponentially (without competition from other colonies), that is why his experiment works so quickly.
> >
> > Colonies don't compete anyway, or they wouldn't be separate colonies. But within the spot where the first mutant bacterium is forming a colony (ie in the lowest drug zone) it is competing, successfully, with wild type bacteria on the same spot. And it competes so successfully that by the time you can see the colony the mutant has gone to fixation.
> What makes you think that variants within a colony are not competing with other variants in that colony?
> >
> > >Lenski's experiment works far more slowly because the competition prevents exponential growth. But both experiments obey the mathematics of my model. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring depends on the ability of the variant to reproduce sufficiently.
> >
> > It's not competition that prevents exponential growth in Lenski's experiment it's the carrying capacity of the chemostat.
> So Lenski doesn't replenish the growth media?
> >
> > > >
> > > > Your approach consistently ignores selection; instead you call it "the amplification phase of the rmns phenomenon," as though all lineages just kept growing exponentially indefinitely. I guess that makes sense if you think that evolution targets some specific, complex set of mutations to get from some starting point to a pre-defined goal; then your goal is to calculate how many replications it would take to reach that pre-specified goal. But that's not remotely what any biologist thinks. Mutations happen. Rarely, a mutation produces an organism whose relative fitness, yes, relative fitness, is greater than that of the wild type. Given a roughly fixed carrying capacity for that population, the new allele approaches fixation a a rate that depends on its relative fitness compared to the wild type. Multiple such mutants can occur in different organisms in a population and they will displace the wild type, recombine, go to fixation, all in ways that you'd be familiar with if you actually modelled "ns."
> > > Blah, blah, blah. Competition slows the evolutionary process by rmns. You ignore the empirical evidence and the laws of physics to think otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > You, however, are fixated on the calculating the probability of some pre-specified set of mutations. Such calculations do indeed depend on the "multiplication rule of probabilities," but they are only relevant in very extreme, man-made instances of intense, multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously. And these cases - multi-drug therapy for infections and cancer - are already well understood.
> > > I have good reason to be fixated on this, read this paper and understand why. http://www.evolvedmicrobe.com/Literature/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
> >
> > Yes, once you're close to a peak on a fitness landscape there are limited pathways to the top. Didn't stop selection from getting there though. Sometime when you have time, you can tell us what you think the experiment was in that paper, and what you think it means.
> How well do you think Weinreich's experiment would work with 2 or 3 drugs instead of his single drug? What if he used 5 drugs, is that 19 metric tons?
> >
> > > The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
> >
> > Of course it is. How could you even think that the mathematics of natural selection would not depend on the intensity of selection? The mathematics of mutation doesn't depend on the intensity of selection, but the mathematics of selection certainly depends on the intensity of selection. How could it not?
> Your own reference showed that most of the bacteria evolved resistance independent of the MIC. Don't you read your own references?
> >
> > > >
> > > > My 1980 edition of Goodman and Gilman's pharmacology textbook already explains the need for multi-drug therapy for TB to prevent the development of resistance during treatment. HAART incorporated triple drug therapy for HIV because everybody in the field knew about the ease with which HIV developed resistance to AZT monotherapy. WHO has been advocating multi-drug therapy for malaria for decades. Multi-drug therapy for cancer is routine. There are thousands of papers on multi-drug therapy in these situations. And all those papers have one interesting thing in common. None of them references your groundbeaking papers on the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. One might almost get the impression that all those evolutionists had actually figured it out without your help.
> > > Multidrug therapy is the correct way of addressing the problem of drug resistance. My mathematics gives the framework for determining how many drugs to use as a function of population size.
> >
> > Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though.
> You had better explain that to clinicians using single-drug therapy for prophylaxis in immune-compromised patients. And of course, I read in your paper that two drug therapy was adequate for preventing the de novo evolution of resistance when treating malaria.
>And don't forget the targeted therapy that oncologists are developing. It is totally reasonable to assume that these therapies will be 100% lethal to all variants in the cancer cell line, that is reasonable if you don't understand how rmns works.
> >
> >
> > >If clearly wasn't bleeping obvious to you that two drug therapy would still allow the emergence of resistance. It would have been bleeping obvious if you understood the basic science and mathematics of rmns.
> >
> > I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this to understand.
> >
> > First, the study was designed to measure the efficacy of WHO recommended treatments, not to evaluate new and potentially better ones. You can't get WHO to change treatment recommendations without showing them there's a problem with the current ones.
> So I guess when you claim "Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though." You didn't mean to include the WHO. When are you going to tell us the dog ate your homework?
> >
> > Second, and more important, you seem to have no clue about what factors impact the choice of anti-malarial regimens. Sure, if there were three cheap, side effect free drugs with identical, short half-lives, no problems in patient compliance in remote rural areas, and no pre-existing resistant strains, then everybody would be treating all malaria cases with those three drugs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation.
> It appears that you don't have a clue either. But you do have a lot of excuses.
> >
> > Third, you seem to know very little about the origins of anti-malarial resistance. Regardless of your model, anti-malarial resistance does not regularly occur by mutation from the wild type during the course of treatment in individual patients. I gave you papers before showing that resistance to chloroquine originated in only 2-3 individual cases and spread globally from them. Likewise resistance to Fansidar does not generally occur by mutation from the wild type during treatment; it originated in a handful of cases and spread globally from them. Indeed, resistance is highly unlikely to occur even in individuals adequately treated with only a single drug (except in the case of atovaquone where a single point mutation is all that's required for resistance, and nobody uses atovaquone monotherapy for exactly that reason). Instead resistance arises as parasites get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses and begin to accumulate sequential mutations a la Kishony. And they get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses for many reasons, poor quality drugs, poor storage conditions of the drugs in remote areas, the long half-lives of many antimalarials which means that newly innoculated parasites sometimes find themseolves in a host with the tail of a drug concentration from a previous treatment, counterfeit drugs, poor people trying to save drugs for future needs by only giving themselves half the pills prescribed. There are many reasons. But what the various causes of drug resistance in malaria have in common is that they have little to do with your model in which two single mutations to resistance to two drugs in an originally sensitive parasite lead to two-drug resistance because the parasite population was high enough to overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> Blah, blah, blah.
>What makes you think that rmns works any different with malaria than for e coli or any other replicator? rmns is nothing more than nested binomial probability problems.
I think your locked on your box and can't come out. Nested binomial probability distributions describe rm. They do not, in any way, describe ns. Since you cannot understand that point, it's fruitless to continue.
>There are other ways a replicator can become resistant to drugs without rmns. Pseudomonas has an efflux pump which can give this bacteria resistance to drugs it has never been exposed to.
More and more I get the feeling that what you call rmns bears little resemblance to what biologists call random mutation and natural selection.
In any case, we're back to a dead end. I'm quite sure I'll not change your mind.
> >
> > <snip older stuff>
r3p...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 12:20:02 AM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:45:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
> > contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
>
> possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
> any contradictions.
"Theistic Evolution" conveys an EGREGIOUS contradiction. There is no such thing as God-involved evolution. Evolution means "completely natural," which means "completely non-supernatural." If God plays ANY role in biological production the same is known to the history of science as Natural Theology or Creationism. And you just got done saying, most confidently, that no contradictions exist. Again my on-going point that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact proven once more. And don't forget: when a contradiction is identified in a sentence or phrase the same means the phrase or sentence cannot be true, cannot exist in reality. So the phrase "Theistic Evolution" conveys a clear example of "contrary-fusion" or confusion.
> On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
> > contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
>
> possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
> any contradictions.
Ray
Wolffan
Oct 16, 2017, 5:15:04 AM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017 Oct 16, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<459e7664-2c7b-442d...@googlegroups.com>):
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:45:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
> > (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
> > > contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
> >
> > possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
> > any contradictions.
>
> "Theistic Evolution" conveys an EGREGIOUS contradiction.
nope.
> There is no such
> thing as God-involved evolution.
why do you insist on putting limits on what god can and cannot do?
> Evolution means "completely natural," which
> means "completely non-supernatural."
nope. if god wants to use natural methods to achieve his object, who are
_you_ to tell him he can’t?
(in article<459e7664-2c7b-442d...@googlegroups.com>):
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:45:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
> > (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
> > > contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
> >
> > possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
> > any contradictions.
>
> "Theistic Evolution" conveys an EGREGIOUS contradiction.
> There is no such
> thing as God-involved evolution.
> Evolution means "completely natural," which
> means "completely non-supernatural."
_you_ to tell him he can’t?
> If God plays ANY role in biological
> production the same is known to the history of science as Natural Theology or
> Creationism.
prove he didn’t. go on, prove it. this i gotta see.
> production the same is known to the history of science as Natural Theology or
> Creationism.
> And you just got done saying, most confidently, that no
> contradictions exist.
yep. only total fucking fruitcakes have problems.
> contradictions exist.
> Again my on-going point that Evolutionists think
> illogically with no awareness of the fact proven once more.
nope.
> illogically with no awareness of the fact proven once more.
> And don't forget:
> when a contradiction is identified in a sentence or phrase the same means the
> phrase or sentence cannot be true, cannot exist in reality.
you’re still trying to limit god, you heretical fruitcake.
> when a contradiction is identified in a sentence or phrase the same means the
> phrase or sentence cannot be true, cannot exist in reality.
> So the phrase
> "Theistic Evolution" conveys a clear example of "contrary-fusion" or
> confusion.
nah.
> "Theistic Evolution" conveys a clear example of "contrary-fusion" or
> confusion.
Burkhard
Oct 16, 2017, 6:45:03 AM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:45:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
>> (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
>>> contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
>>
>> possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
>> any contradictions.
>
> "Theistic Evolution" conveys an EGREGIOUS contradiction.
You can stamp with your foot on the ground and throw a tantrum as much
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:45:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
>> (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
>>> contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
>>
>> possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
>> any contradictions.
>
> "Theistic Evolution" conveys an EGREGIOUS contradiction.
as you like, but that does not change the fact that you are simply wrong.
>There is no such thing as God-involved evolution.
>Evolution means "completely natural," which means "completely non-supernatural."
population in response to external environmental factors, drift and soem
other factors.
> If God plays ANY role in biological production the same is known to the history of science as Natural Theology or Creationism.
Its core assumption is tat it is possible for humans to have knowledge
of God through observation and reasoning, and without the need for
revealed knowledge. As such it was only ever a highly problematic
theological position, unique for a specific school of thought within
Christianity. It's heydays as a theological school are long over, not
just (or even mainly) because of the advances of science, but because of
the inherent theological problems such an approach entails (it
essentially constraints God and makes him subject to human categories).
Even then the direction of reasoning is the opposite from what you
claim: the explanandum, that is the phenomenon to be explained, is God,
the explanans, that is the thing that does the explaining, are the
observations of nature. Only the illegitimate and degenerate offspring
of that school, modern day creationism, tries to use God to explain nature.
In any case, this specific approach to theology is but a blink in the
history of theology, and modern theologians are not bound by the ideas
of their 19th century forbears. So it might require a different type of
theology to do theistic evolution, but that is really not a problem.
Secondly, you keep confusing "playing an explanatory role in a theory"
with "being consistent with" or "being interpreted as". Theistic
evolution is a theological position, not a scientific theory. It is
"about" (meta-physical)theory of science that takes the scientific
results as a given and interprets them theologically. For that reason
alone there can't be a contradiction. Science concerns itself only with
concepts that make a measurable difference between theories, that is are
needed to distinguish between different theories. Since theistic
evolution takes the scientific results as input and for granted, it
refrains form the word go to offer ideas that play a direct explanatory
role in scientific theories. Rather, just like the various theories of
science, it develops ideas of what it ultimately means to talk about
causation etc.
The funny thing of course is that one of your own lines of reasoning
collapses immediately into a for of theistic evolution (occasionalism)
whether you realize this or not.
> And you just got done saying, most confidently, that no contradictions exist. Again my on-going point that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact proven once more. And don't forget: when a contradiction is identified in a sentence or phrase the same means the phrase or sentence cannot be true, cannot exist in reality. So the phrase "Theistic Evolution" conveys a clear example of "contrary-fusion" or confusion.
obliged to do
Alan Kleinman MD PhD
Oct 16, 2017, 9:00:03 AM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 8:35:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 2:15:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >
> > > <Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
> > >
> > > > > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> > > > It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > >
> > > Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
> > And that's the key for understanding how rmns works.
>
> No, that's the key for how rm works. It has nothing to do with how ns works.
It does if you understand that amplification is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the variant. But you don't understand this.
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 2:15:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >
> > > <Lots of stuff that got truncated. Curse the interaction between TO and GG>
> > >
> > > > > > This is progress when you agree that the probability of a particular mutation occurring depends on the number of replications. Now I need to get you to understand that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't progress. Everybody you are arguing with knows full well that the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the number of replications. It's bleeping obvious.
> > > > It should also be bleeping obvious that the number of replications is dependent on the absolute reproductive fitness of the particular variant, not the relative reproductive fitness.
> > >
> > > Yeah, so what? Nobody here disagrees with you about how to calculate the probability of a specific mutation or combination of mutations occurring.
> > And that's the key for understanding how rmns works.
>
> No, that's the key for how rm works. It has nothing to do with how ns works.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > Competition between different variants does not improve the absolute reproductive fitness of any of the variants. In fact, this competition reduces the absolute reproductive fitness of each of the competing variants which slows the rmns process for all the variants.
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep saying this. You don't demonstrate it in your model, though. In fact, you claim that the Kishony experiments validate your model. And the Kishony experiments only work because at each stage of drug concentration the most recent mutant outcompetes the earlier ones. Without that competition you'd need 10^19 metric tons of bacteria to get the quintuple mutant. So, in spite of your claims, competition vastly accelerates evolution.
> > > > You must be joking! Do you really think that if Kishony put both e coli and staph on his agar plate that it would accelerate the evolution drug resistance in both lineages? Or if Lenski combined e coli and staph in his test tubes that his experiment would be accelerated? Competition from different variants reduces the ability of all the variants to increase in population size.
> > >
> > > But Kishony's experiment is vastly accelerated. Consider a situation in which there was no competition between variants (ie, no drug on the plate). Then you'd need 10e40 replications to get the quintuple mutant. But *with* competition between variants (ie with increasing drug concentrations that cause the variants to have different relative fitness) only 5*10e8 replications are required. Sure looks like competition makes things work more efficiently.
> > I'll say it again. rmns works most efficiently when only a single targeted selection pressure targets a single gene. The lineage must deal with only a single instance of the multiplication rule and in the case of the Kishony experiment, no competition to slow amplification, essentially no limitation on resources and no other selection pressures which would introduce additional instances of the multiplication rule forcing much higher amplification for the multiple simultaneous beneficial mutations.
>
> You can say it till your blue in the face, but that won't make it apply outside of a few extreme cases.
So where are your empirical examples that don't apply?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > Competition between different variants does not improve the absolute reproductive fitness of any of the variants. In fact, this competition reduces the absolute reproductive fitness of each of the competing variants which slows the rmns process for all the variants.
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep saying this. You don't demonstrate it in your model, though. In fact, you claim that the Kishony experiments validate your model. And the Kishony experiments only work because at each stage of drug concentration the most recent mutant outcompetes the earlier ones. Without that competition you'd need 10^19 metric tons of bacteria to get the quintuple mutant. So, in spite of your claims, competition vastly accelerates evolution.
> > > > You must be joking! Do you really think that if Kishony put both e coli and staph on his agar plate that it would accelerate the evolution drug resistance in both lineages? Or if Lenski combined e coli and staph in his test tubes that his experiment would be accelerated? Competition from different variants reduces the ability of all the variants to increase in population size.
> > >
> > > But Kishony's experiment is vastly accelerated. Consider a situation in which there was no competition between variants (ie, no drug on the plate). Then you'd need 10e40 replications to get the quintuple mutant. But *with* competition between variants (ie with increasing drug concentrations that cause the variants to have different relative fitness) only 5*10e8 replications are required. Sure looks like competition makes things work more efficiently.
> > I'll say it again. rmns works most efficiently when only a single targeted selection pressure targets a single gene. The lineage must deal with only a single instance of the multiplication rule and in the case of the Kishony experiment, no competition to slow amplification, essentially no limitation on resources and no other selection pressures which would introduce additional instances of the multiplication rule forcing much higher amplification for the multiple simultaneous beneficial mutations.
>
> You can say it till your blue in the face, but that won't make it apply outside of a few extreme cases.
>
> >If you want to see a clinical example of the Kishony experiment, read this paper:
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948664/
.****************************
> >If you want to see a clinical example of the Kishony experiment, read this paper:
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948664/
Read the paper in the above link and find out that how poorly understood rmns is. They make the same mistake you made in your study.
.****************************
> > And then you can tell me how well versed the full-timers in the medical system are on how rmns works. There many studies like this using single-drug therapy in immune-compromised patients and resistance appearing.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > If you want to consider the relative reproductive fitness of the different variants, you could look at a different problem. Consider the worldwide population of the different variants of malaria. These variants are only under drug selection pressure in the individual treated patients but when not under drug selection pressure, the drug-resistant variants may be less efficient replicators than the wild forms. If you remove a particular drug from usage, how long does it take for this drug-resistant variant to disappear from the worldwide population?
> > > > >
> > > > > This was actually done in Malawi. When use of chloroquine was discontinued and strictly enforced, chloroquine sensitive strains came back and constituted >90% of P. falciparm strains in circulation. These weren't new back mutations to chloroquine sensitivity, they were just the few CQ sensitive strains that had persisted which then came back towards fixation. No need to model "rm" here; it was only "ns" that was relevant.
> > > > When did I ever say that ns has to work with rm. In fact, rmns is the exception in response to ns.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by saying that random mutation and natural selection is the exception in response to natural selection? That is totally confused. Random mutation just happens, it's not a response to natural selection. And natural selection can hardly be an exception in response to natural selection.
> > Directional selection is rare, it only occurs in the special instances when physicians use single targeted selection pressures targeting single genes or in agriculture where single targeted insecticides and pesticides are used. If the selection pressures don't drive the population to extinction, the usual response is drift.
>
> Or in the natural world where climate change or migration or inter-species interactions or predator-prey "arms races" or temperature or altitude gradients or any number of other natural phenomena provide directional selection.
So where are your empirical examples of rmns in the natural world evolving to multiple simultaneous selection pressures? I can find plenty of examples where the species go extinct.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > If you want to consider the relative reproductive fitness of the different variants, you could look at a different problem. Consider the worldwide population of the different variants of malaria. These variants are only under drug selection pressure in the individual treated patients but when not under drug selection pressure, the drug-resistant variants may be less efficient replicators than the wild forms. If you remove a particular drug from usage, how long does it take for this drug-resistant variant to disappear from the worldwide population?
> > > > >
> > > > > This was actually done in Malawi. When use of chloroquine was discontinued and strictly enforced, chloroquine sensitive strains came back and constituted >90% of P. falciparm strains in circulation. These weren't new back mutations to chloroquine sensitivity, they were just the few CQ sensitive strains that had persisted which then came back towards fixation. No need to model "rm" here; it was only "ns" that was relevant.
> > > > When did I ever say that ns has to work with rm. In fact, rmns is the exception in response to ns.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by saying that random mutation and natural selection is the exception in response to natural selection? That is totally confused. Random mutation just happens, it's not a response to natural selection. And natural selection can hardly be an exception in response to natural selection.
> > Directional selection is rare, it only occurs in the special instances when physicians use single targeted selection pressures targeting single genes or in agriculture where single targeted insecticides and pesticides are used. If the selection pressures don't drive the population to extinction, the usual response is drift.
>
> Or in the natural world where climate change or migration or inter-species interactions or predator-prey "arms races" or temperature or altitude gradients or any number of other natural phenomena provide directional selection.
>
> It's interesting that you think selection is rare in nature. You're completely wrong, but at least it explains why all your examples of what you call rmns come from medicine or agriculture.
I don't think selection is rare at all. In fact, the lack of selection is rare. Farmer try to make low selection pressure environments for their crops but the weeds and insects keep messing this up. You have no empirical examples of rmns other than those from medicine and agriculture.
> It's interesting that you think selection is rare in nature. You're completely wrong, but at least it explains why all your examples of what you call rmns come from medicine or agriculture.
>
> > >
> > > You'd tie yourself in knots less often if you'd stop talking about "rmns" and talk about either random mutation or natural selection. They are quite separable; one can have mutation without selection, as in neutral drift, or selection without mutation, as in selection for or against pre-existing variants.
> > I'm not in a knot at all. I understand the physics and mathematics of rmns quite well. This mathematics correlates with all real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. Do you want to try again and post a real, measurable and repeatable example which contradicts this model?
>
> All your model says is that the probability of getting a specific combination of n mutants is p^n, if p is the probability of each individual mutation. That's not a model, it's a piece of (certainly correct) math.
And if the variant does not have sufficient absolute fitness to reproduce, that probability remains low.
> > >
> > > You'd tie yourself in knots less often if you'd stop talking about "rmns" and talk about either random mutation or natural selection. They are quite separable; one can have mutation without selection, as in neutral drift, or selection without mutation, as in selection for or against pre-existing variants.
> > I'm not in a knot at all. I understand the physics and mathematics of rmns quite well. This mathematics correlates with all real, measurable and repeatable example of rmns. Do you want to try again and post a real, measurable and repeatable example which contradicts this model?
>
> All your model says is that the probability of getting a specific combination of n mutants is p^n, if p is the probability of each individual mutation. That's not a model, it's a piece of (certainly correct) math.
> > >
> > > >Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
> > >
> > > Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
> > But the variants care quite a bit about the complexity of the selection conditions and the physical environment because that determines whether any variants have a reasonable probability of evolving to those selection conditions, you know, that 19 metric ton problem.
>
> So go ahead and show us how you model natural selection. We all know how to calculate the joint probabilities of multiple mutations. We all see that you know that, too. But you seem incapable of understanding that that's all you've been modelling.
Bill, it is the number of replications that determine the probabilities and that number is dependent on the absolute fitness to reproduce.
> > > >Extinction of variants is the more likely outcome from ns. And like I said, relative reproductive fitness is the appropriate way to do this type of calculation but it is not the correct way to model ns when evaluating rmns.
> > >
> > > Natural selection is natural selection, you model it the same way whether you are considering what happens to pre-existing variants or whether you add in considerations of new mutations. Natural selection doesn't care where the variants come from.
> > But the variants care quite a bit about the complexity of the selection conditions and the physical environment because that determines whether any variants have a reasonable probability of evolving to those selection conditions, you know, that 19 metric ton problem.
>
> So go ahead and show us how you model natural selection. We all know how to calculate the joint probabilities of multiple mutations. We all see that you know that, too. But you seem incapable of understanding that that's all you've been modelling.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >But when it comes to rmns, you need to use the absolute population size of the particular variant to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, duh. But the probability of a specific mutation occurring is the "rm" part of rmns. You need to consider changes in the allele frequencies if you want to understand the "ns" part of rmns.
> > > > You are obsessed with the relative reproductive fitness as the only way to view ns. Until you understand that absolute reproductive fitness determines the probability of a beneficial occurring, this phenomenon will confuse you.
> > >
> > > I'm not confused in the least. The probability of a specific mutation or group of mutations is dependent on the number of replications. But in a world in which resources are limited and populations run into a carrying capacity of the environment rather than growing exponentially forever, relative allele frequencies characterize what happens in the population just fine. When you want to do your calculation of the probability that some specific combination of mutations will occur you just multiply the frequency of the starting variant by the population size.
> > See what happens if you try to run the Kishony experiment on a standard size petri dish. All the factors you list reduce the probability of an evolutionary process by rmns occurring. If amplification does not occur, the probability of the next evolutionary step by rmns drops to near zero.
>
> You say that over and over again, but you never show it in your model.
Sure I show it. A small petri dish limits the environment size compared to the Kishony's large petri dish. This limits total population size limiting the ability of a variant to amplify. Why don't you want to understand this simple fact?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >But when it comes to rmns, you need to use the absolute population size of the particular variant to compute the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, duh. But the probability of a specific mutation occurring is the "rm" part of rmns. You need to consider changes in the allele frequencies if you want to understand the "ns" part of rmns.
> > > > You are obsessed with the relative reproductive fitness as the only way to view ns. Until you understand that absolute reproductive fitness determines the probability of a beneficial occurring, this phenomenon will confuse you.
> > >
> > > I'm not confused in the least. The probability of a specific mutation or group of mutations is dependent on the number of replications. But in a world in which resources are limited and populations run into a carrying capacity of the environment rather than growing exponentially forever, relative allele frequencies characterize what happens in the population just fine. When you want to do your calculation of the probability that some specific combination of mutations will occur you just multiply the frequency of the starting variant by the population size.
> > See what happens if you try to run the Kishony experiment on a standard size petri dish. All the factors you list reduce the probability of an evolutionary process by rmns occurring. If amplification does not occur, the probability of the next evolutionary step by rmns drops to near zero.
>
> You say that over and over again, but you never show it in your model.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is it appropriate to use allele frequencies? In the first place, if you want to find absolute numbers of a variant, you just multiply the frequency of that variant by the population size. More importantly, though, all populations are resource limited. No population grows exponentially for more than a few generations, or the surface of the earth would be a solid mass of cockroaches. So most populations come to a rough equilibrium over time. If a better adapted variant appears, it will succeed at the expense of the wild type, and the relative frequencies will change.
> > >
> > > > Kishony's colonies are growing exponentially (without competition from other colonies), that is why his experiment works so quickly.
> > >
> > > Colonies don't compete anyway, or they wouldn't be separate colonies. But within the spot where the first mutant bacterium is forming a colony (ie in the lowest drug zone) it is competing, successfully, with wild type bacteria on the same spot. And it competes so successfully that by the time you can see the colony the mutant has gone to fixation.
> > What makes you think that variants within a colony are not competing with other variants in that colony?
>
> They are ("competing, successfully with wild type bacteria on the same spot", as I said, just above, in the paragraph you're responding to). That's the point. There's competition in Kishony. That's why it take 5*10e8 replications instead of 10e40.
It only takes 5e8 replications in the Kishony experiment because the mutations don't need to occur simultaneously (5 instances of the multiplication rule at the same time), they occur sequentially (only one instance of the multiplication at a time)
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is it appropriate to use allele frequencies? In the first place, if you want to find absolute numbers of a variant, you just multiply the frequency of that variant by the population size. More importantly, though, all populations are resource limited. No population grows exponentially for more than a few generations, or the surface of the earth would be a solid mass of cockroaches. So most populations come to a rough equilibrium over time. If a better adapted variant appears, it will succeed at the expense of the wild type, and the relative frequencies will change.
> > >
> > > > Kishony's colonies are growing exponentially (without competition from other colonies), that is why his experiment works so quickly.
> > >
> > > Colonies don't compete anyway, or they wouldn't be separate colonies. But within the spot where the first mutant bacterium is forming a colony (ie in the lowest drug zone) it is competing, successfully, with wild type bacteria on the same spot. And it competes so successfully that by the time you can see the colony the mutant has gone to fixation.
> > What makes you think that variants within a colony are not competing with other variants in that colony?
>
> They are ("competing, successfully with wild type bacteria on the same spot", as I said, just above, in the paragraph you're responding to). That's the point. There's competition in Kishony. That's why it take 5*10e8 replications instead of 10e40.
>
> > >
> > > >Lenski's experiment works far more slowly because the competition prevents exponential growth. But both experiments obey the mathematics of my model. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring depends on the ability of the variant to reproduce sufficiently.
> > >
> > > It's not competition that prevents exponential growth in Lenski's experiment it's the carrying capacity of the chemostat.
> > So Lenski doesn't replenish the growth media?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your approach consistently ignores selection; instead you call it "the amplification phase of the rmns phenomenon," as though all lineages just kept growing exponentially indefinitely. I guess that makes sense if you think that evolution targets some specific, complex set of mutations to get from some starting point to a pre-defined goal; then your goal is to calculate how many replications it would take to reach that pre-specified goal. But that's not remotely what any biologist thinks. Mutations happen. Rarely, a mutation produces an organism whose relative fitness, yes, relative fitness, is greater than that of the wild type. Given a roughly fixed carrying capacity for that population, the new allele approaches fixation a a rate that depends on its relative fitness compared to the wild type. Multiple such mutants can occur in different organisms in a population and they will displace the wild type, recombine, go to fixation, all in ways that you'd be familiar with if you actually modelled "ns."
> > > > Blah, blah, blah. Competition slows the evolutionary process by rmns. You ignore the empirical evidence and the laws of physics to think otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > You, however, are fixated on the calculating the probability of some pre-specified set of mutations. Such calculations do indeed depend on the "multiplication rule of probabilities," but they are only relevant in very extreme, man-made instances of intense, multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously. And these cases - multi-drug therapy for infections and cancer - are already well understood.
> > > > I have good reason to be fixated on this, read this paper and understand why. http://www.evolvedmicrobe.com/Literature/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
> > >
> > > Yes, once you're close to a peak on a fitness landscape there are limited pathways to the top. Didn't stop selection from getting there though. Sometime when you have time, you can tell us what you think the experiment was in that paper, and what you think it means.
> > How well do you think Weinreich's experiment would work with 2 or 3 drugs instead of his single drug? What if he used 5 drugs, is that 19 metric tons?
>
> Why do you think that matters? No, never mind, we need a whole thread for that paper.
The mathematics which governs the Weinreich experiment is the same mathematics which governs the Kishony experiment, which is the same mathematics which governs your work (except you have two simultaneous selection pressures) which is the same mathematics which governs all examples of rmns. rmns is nothing more than sets of nested binomial probability equations where each binomial probability equation is linked to the others by the multiplication rule.
> > >
> > > >Lenski's experiment works far more slowly because the competition prevents exponential growth. But both experiments obey the mathematics of my model. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring depends on the ability of the variant to reproduce sufficiently.
> > >
> > > It's not competition that prevents exponential growth in Lenski's experiment it's the carrying capacity of the chemostat.
> > So Lenski doesn't replenish the growth media?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your approach consistently ignores selection; instead you call it "the amplification phase of the rmns phenomenon," as though all lineages just kept growing exponentially indefinitely. I guess that makes sense if you think that evolution targets some specific, complex set of mutations to get from some starting point to a pre-defined goal; then your goal is to calculate how many replications it would take to reach that pre-specified goal. But that's not remotely what any biologist thinks. Mutations happen. Rarely, a mutation produces an organism whose relative fitness, yes, relative fitness, is greater than that of the wild type. Given a roughly fixed carrying capacity for that population, the new allele approaches fixation a a rate that depends on its relative fitness compared to the wild type. Multiple such mutants can occur in different organisms in a population and they will displace the wild type, recombine, go to fixation, all in ways that you'd be familiar with if you actually modelled "ns."
> > > > Blah, blah, blah. Competition slows the evolutionary process by rmns. You ignore the empirical evidence and the laws of physics to think otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > You, however, are fixated on the calculating the probability of some pre-specified set of mutations. Such calculations do indeed depend on the "multiplication rule of probabilities," but they are only relevant in very extreme, man-made instances of intense, multiple selection pressures applied simultaneously. And these cases - multi-drug therapy for infections and cancer - are already well understood.
> > > > I have good reason to be fixated on this, read this paper and understand why. http://www.evolvedmicrobe.com/Literature/Weinreich_etal2006.pdf
> > >
> > > Yes, once you're close to a peak on a fitness landscape there are limited pathways to the top. Didn't stop selection from getting there though. Sometime when you have time, you can tell us what you think the experiment was in that paper, and what you think it means.
> > How well do you think Weinreich's experiment would work with 2 or 3 drugs instead of his single drug? What if he used 5 drugs, is that 19 metric tons?
>
> Why do you think that matters? No, never mind, we need a whole thread for that paper.
>
> > >
> > > > The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
> > >
> > > Of course it is. How could you even think that the mathematics of natural selection would not depend on the intensity of selection? The mathematics of mutation doesn't depend on the intensity of selection, but the mathematics of selection certainly depends on the intensity of selection. How could it not?
> > Your own reference showed that most of the bacteria evolved resistance independent of the MIC. Don't you read your own references?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My 1980 edition of Goodman and Gilman's pharmacology textbook already explains the need for multi-drug therapy for TB to prevent the development of resistance during treatment. HAART incorporated triple drug therapy for HIV because everybody in the field knew about the ease with which HIV developed resistance to AZT monotherapy. WHO has been advocating multi-drug therapy for malaria for decades. Multi-drug therapy for cancer is routine. There are thousands of papers on multi-drug therapy in these situations. And all those papers have one interesting thing in common. None of them references your groundbeaking papers on the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. One might almost get the impression that all those evolutionists had actually figured it out without your help.
> > > > Multidrug therapy is the correct way of addressing the problem of drug resistance. My mathematics gives the framework for determining how many drugs to use as a function of population size.
> > >
> > > Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though.
> > You had better explain that to clinicians using single-drug therapy for prophylaxis in immune-compromised patients. And of course, I read in your paper that two drug therapy was adequate for preventing the de novo evolution of resistance when treating malaria.
>
> You certainly read no such thing in my paper. Though, in fact, the resistance we observed was not de novo resistance, as you'd know if you'd understood the paper.
Of course, I didn't read that in your paper. It wasn't even on your radar screen that two drug therapy could still allow for de novo evolution of resistance. That's because you don't understand how rmns works.
> > >
> > > > The mathematics of rmns is not dependent on the intensity of selection.
> > >
> > > Of course it is. How could you even think that the mathematics of natural selection would not depend on the intensity of selection? The mathematics of mutation doesn't depend on the intensity of selection, but the mathematics of selection certainly depends on the intensity of selection. How could it not?
> > Your own reference showed that most of the bacteria evolved resistance independent of the MIC. Don't you read your own references?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My 1980 edition of Goodman and Gilman's pharmacology textbook already explains the need for multi-drug therapy for TB to prevent the development of resistance during treatment. HAART incorporated triple drug therapy for HIV because everybody in the field knew about the ease with which HIV developed resistance to AZT monotherapy. WHO has been advocating multi-drug therapy for malaria for decades. Multi-drug therapy for cancer is routine. There are thousands of papers on multi-drug therapy in these situations. And all those papers have one interesting thing in common. None of them references your groundbeaking papers on the mathematics of the rmns phenomenon. One might almost get the impression that all those evolutionists had actually figured it out without your help.
> > > > Multidrug therapy is the correct way of addressing the problem of drug resistance. My mathematics gives the framework for determining how many drugs to use as a function of population size.
> > >
> > > Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though.
> > You had better explain that to clinicians using single-drug therapy for prophylaxis in immune-compromised patients. And of course, I read in your paper that two drug therapy was adequate for preventing the de novo evolution of resistance when treating malaria.
>
> You certainly read no such thing in my paper. Though, in fact, the resistance we observed was not de novo resistance, as you'd know if you'd understood the paper.
>
> >And don't forget the targeted therapy that oncologists are developing. It is totally reasonable to assume that these therapies will be 100% lethal to all variants in the cancer cell line, that is reasonable if you don't understand how rmns works.
> > >
> > >
> > > >If clearly wasn't bleeping obvious to you that two drug therapy would still allow the emergence of resistance. It would have been bleeping obvious if you understood the basic science and mathematics of rmns.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this to understand.
> > >
> > > First, the study was designed to measure the efficacy of WHO recommended treatments, not to evaluate new and potentially better ones. You can't get WHO to change treatment recommendations without showing them there's a problem with the current ones.
> > So I guess when you claim "Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though." You didn't mean to include the WHO. When are you going to tell us the dog ate your homework?
>
> Good grief. Read up on the subject before you pontificate.
Do you and the WHO understand how rmns works or not because that mathematics tells you whether there is a reasonable probability of de novo evolution occurring to two drug therapy.
> >And don't forget the targeted therapy that oncologists are developing. It is totally reasonable to assume that these therapies will be 100% lethal to all variants in the cancer cell line, that is reasonable if you don't understand how rmns works.
> > >
> > >
> > > >If clearly wasn't bleeping obvious to you that two drug therapy would still allow the emergence of resistance. It would have been bleeping obvious if you understood the basic science and mathematics of rmns.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how many times you need to hear this to understand.
> > >
> > > First, the study was designed to measure the efficacy of WHO recommended treatments, not to evaluate new and potentially better ones. You can't get WHO to change treatment recommendations without showing them there's a problem with the current ones.
> > So I guess when you claim "Seems like the field figured it out long before you published your papers, though." You didn't mean to include the WHO. When are you going to tell us the dog ate your homework?
>
> Good grief. Read up on the subject before you pontificate.
.
But I get it. You are a drone working for the WHO. And you and your commanders already understand how combination therapy works but decided to use two-drug therapy in order to introduce more resistant variants of malaria into the worldwide gene pool of this parasite. I'm sure you and the other bureaucrats of the WHO will do the same thing with the influenza virus. You guys are really smart cookies. Like I say, no education in the second kick of a mule.
>
> > >
> > > Second, and more important, you seem to have no clue about what factors impact the choice of anti-malarial regimens. Sure, if there were three cheap, side effect free drugs with identical, short half-lives, no problems in patient compliance in remote rural areas, and no pre-existing resistant strains, then everybody would be treating all malaria cases with those three drugs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation.
> > It appears that you don't have a clue either. But you do have a lot of excuses.
>
> If you've figured out the answer, publish it in Malaria Journal or write the WHO. It's a tough problem. I'm sure they'd love your expert advice.
I've already published the mathematics which governs rmns in a good journal. This mathematics applies to more than just the treatment of malaria, it applies to all example of rmns.
> > >
> > > Second, and more important, you seem to have no clue about what factors impact the choice of anti-malarial regimens. Sure, if there were three cheap, side effect free drugs with identical, short half-lives, no problems in patient compliance in remote rural areas, and no pre-existing resistant strains, then everybody would be treating all malaria cases with those three drugs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation.
> > It appears that you don't have a clue either. But you do have a lot of excuses.
>
> If you've figured out the answer, publish it in Malaria Journal or write the WHO. It's a tough problem. I'm sure they'd love your expert advice.
>
> > >
> > > Third, you seem to know very little about the origins of anti-malarial resistance. Regardless of your model, anti-malarial resistance does not regularly occur by mutation from the wild type during the course of treatment in individual patients. I gave you papers before showing that resistance to chloroquine originated in only 2-3 individual cases and spread globally from them. Likewise resistance to Fansidar does not generally occur by mutation from the wild type during treatment; it originated in a handful of cases and spread globally from them. Indeed, resistance is highly unlikely to occur even in individuals adequately treated with only a single drug (except in the case of atovaquone where a single point mutation is all that's required for resistance, and nobody uses atovaquone monotherapy for exactly that reason). Instead resistance arises as parasites get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses and begin to accumulate sequential mutations a la Kishony. And they get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses for many reasons, poor quality drugs, poor storage conditions of the drugs in remote areas, the long half-lives of many antimalarials which means that newly innoculated parasites sometimes find themseolves in a host with the tail of a drug concentration from a previous treatment, counterfeit drugs, poor people trying to save drugs for future needs by only giving themselves half the pills prescribed. There are many reasons. But what the various causes of drug resistance in malaria have in common is that they have little to do with your model in which two single mutations to resistance to two drugs in an originally sensitive parasite lead to two-drug resistance because the parasite population was high enough to overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> > Blah, blah, blah.
>
> If you're bored, do something else. But if you want to understand drug resistance in malaria you shouldn't skip over that bit.
I have a good understanding of drug resistance. I deal with MRSA and a variety of other drug-resistant microbes. I understand that each infectious agent has its own set of susceptibilities to different drugs. And I study the susceptibilities of the infectious agents I deal with. If I dealt with Malaria, I would do the same thing. But I don't have to deal with malaria where I work. If you continue to screw up in your work, I'll probably have to deal with that problem as well.
> > >
> > > Third, you seem to know very little about the origins of anti-malarial resistance. Regardless of your model, anti-malarial resistance does not regularly occur by mutation from the wild type during the course of treatment in individual patients. I gave you papers before showing that resistance to chloroquine originated in only 2-3 individual cases and spread globally from them. Likewise resistance to Fansidar does not generally occur by mutation from the wild type during treatment; it originated in a handful of cases and spread globally from them. Indeed, resistance is highly unlikely to occur even in individuals adequately treated with only a single drug (except in the case of atovaquone where a single point mutation is all that's required for resistance, and nobody uses atovaquone monotherapy for exactly that reason). Instead resistance arises as parasites get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses and begin to accumulate sequential mutations a la Kishony. And they get exposed to sub-therapeutic doses for many reasons, poor quality drugs, poor storage conditions of the drugs in remote areas, the long half-lives of many antimalarials which means that newly innoculated parasites sometimes find themseolves in a host with the tail of a drug concentration from a previous treatment, counterfeit drugs, poor people trying to save drugs for future needs by only giving themselves half the pills prescribed. There are many reasons. But what the various causes of drug resistance in malaria have in common is that they have little to do with your model in which two single mutations to resistance to two drugs in an originally sensitive parasite lead to two-drug resistance because the parasite population was high enough to overcome the multiplication rule of probabilities.
> > Blah, blah, blah.
>
> If you're bored, do something else. But if you want to understand drug resistance in malaria you shouldn't skip over that bit.
>
> >What makes you think that rmns works any different with malaria than for e coli or any other replicator? rmns is nothing more than nested binomial probability problems.
>
> It doesn't. But the drug resistances in malaria require 4-5 separate mutations for resistance to each drug, so de novo emergence of resistance during the course of adequate treatment, with one drug or two is highly improbable, by that old multiplication rule of probabilities. Resistance emerges as a result of exposure of the parasite to sub-therapeutic concentrations of drug, for the reasons you blah,blah,blahed above.
Why don't you take a more careful look at the patients who gave rise to the resistant variants? If they were doing the treatments correctly, you should consider the patient's immune response to the disease. I often use single drug therapy successfully in my patients but these are people who are fully immune competent. If I have patients with comorbidities (anything which might impair the immune response), these are the ones who are more at risk of getting drug-resistant variants and should be given combination therapy.
> >What makes you think that rmns works any different with malaria than for e coli or any other replicator? rmns is nothing more than nested binomial probability problems.
>
> It doesn't. But the drug resistances in malaria require 4-5 separate mutations for resistance to each drug, so de novo emergence of resistance during the course of adequate treatment, with one drug or two is highly improbable, by that old multiplication rule of probabilities. Resistance emerges as a result of exposure of the parasite to sub-therapeutic concentrations of drug, for the reasons you blah,blah,blahed above.
>
> I think your locked on your box and can't come out. Nested binomial probability distributions describe rm. They do not, in any way, describe ns. Since you cannot understand that point, it's fruitless to continue.
The absolute reproductive fitness to reproduce addresses ns, that's measured by the number of replications. That's how you link the nested binomial probability equations to get rmns. What is a mystery to me is why you don't want to understand this. I can understand why John doesn't want to understand this but one would think you would want to have a better understanding how to treat malaria.
> I think your locked on your box and can't come out. Nested binomial probability distributions describe rm. They do not, in any way, describe ns. Since you cannot understand that point, it's fruitless to continue.
>
>
> >There are other ways a replicator can become resistant to drugs without rmns. Pseudomonas has an efflux pump which can give this bacteria resistance to drugs it has never been exposed to.
>
> How do you think Pseudomonas ended up with an efflux pump if not by random mutation and natural selection?
And?
>
> >There are other ways a replicator can become resistant to drugs without rmns. Pseudomonas has an efflux pump which can give this bacteria resistance to drugs it has never been exposed to.
>
> How do you think Pseudomonas ended up with an efflux pump if not by random mutation and natural selection?
>
> More and more I get the feeling that what you call rmns bears little resemblance to what biologists call random mutation and natural selection.
Haldane and Kimura do not model rmns, they model drift.
> More and more I get the feeling that what you call rmns bears little resemblance to what biologists call random mutation and natural selection.
>
> In any case, we're back to a dead end. I'm quite sure I'll not change your mind.
Why would I want to change my mind from the correct mathematical and empirical facts of life? I actually want to be successful at treating infectious diseases and preventing the emergence of resistance. Don't you?
> In any case, we're back to a dead end. I'm quite sure I'll not change your mind.
>
>
> > >
> > > <snip older stuff>
Andre G. Isaak
Oct 16, 2017, 10:05:04 AM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In article <4c72fb94-8a3b-4a16...@googlegroups.com>,
Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> The absolute reproductive fitness to reproduce addresses ns,
All that effort you spent on looking up 'absolute fitness' wasted...
> The absolute reproductive fitness to reproduce addresses ns,
Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Alan Kleinman MD PhD
Oct 16, 2017, 10:50:05 AM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:05:04 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <4c72fb94-8a3b-4a16...@googlegroups.com>,
> In article <4c72fb94-8a3b-4a16...@googlegroups.com>,
> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>
> > The absolute reproductive fitness to reproduce addresses ns,
>
> All that effort you spent on looking up 'absolute fitness' wasted...
And your understanding of fitness to reproduce is limited and incomplete.
>
> > The absolute reproductive fitness to reproduce addresses ns,
>
> All that effort you spent on looking up 'absolute fitness' wasted...
Bob Casanova
Oct 16, 2017, 1:00:03 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:13:37 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>:
>On 2017 Oct 16, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
>(in article<459e7664-2c7b-442d...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:45:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>> > On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
>> > (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
>> >
>> > > My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
>> > > contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
>> >
>> > possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
>> > any contradictions.
>>
>> "Theistic Evolution" conveys an EGREGIOUS contradiction.
>
>nope.
>
>> There is no such
>> thing as God-involved evolution.
>
>why do you insist on putting limits on what god can and cannot do?
He always has, and presumably always will. He seems to think
that God is as incompetent as Ray, and absolutely *cannot*
do anything which Ray doesn't understand. And *every single
time* it's been pointed out to Ray that God doesn't answer
to him and isn't constrained by the content of the Bible,
he has become mute. The following quote is anathema to Ray:
"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working
universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey,
if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a
god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles
and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to
Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for
when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being." - Lee DeRaud
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>:
>On 2017 Oct 16, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
>(in article<459e7664-2c7b-442d...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:45:02 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>> > On 2017 Oct 15, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
>> > (in article<4cec0761-38aa-4f0e...@googlegroups.com>):
>> >
>> > > My main claim against Theistic Evolutionists is their confusion, fusing
>> > > contrary concepts together, with no awareness of contradiction.
>> >
>> > possibly ‘cause only a total fucking fruitcake would think that there are
>> > any contradictions.
>>
>> "Theistic Evolution" conveys an EGREGIOUS contradiction.
>
>nope.
>
>> There is no such
>> thing as God-involved evolution.
>
>why do you insist on putting limits on what god can and cannot do?
that God is as incompetent as Ray, and absolutely *cannot*
do anything which Ray doesn't understand. And *every single
time* it's been pointed out to Ray that God doesn't answer
to him and isn't constrained by the content of the Bible,
he has become mute. The following quote is anathema to Ray:
"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working
universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey,
if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a
god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles
and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to
Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for
when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being." - Lee DeRaud
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
r3p...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 2:15:03 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
Moreover, don't forget, when a contradiction is identified in a sentence or phrase the same means neither can be true, these cannot exist in reality. Since the facts have established that both sides accept existence of organized complexity, accidental and unintelligent causes cannot exist.
Lastly, we know the structure of DNA is in the form of a double helix, which is a designed configuration, not a malformed or chaotic configuration as one would expect if an unintelligent or accidental cause existed. I now ask Alan to identify a commensurate amount of effects that reflect the concept of accident? When cars, for example, collide the ensuing effects do not reflect organization. Thus we see no evidence of accidental mutation or unintelligent selection in biological reality.
Ray
Rolf
Oct 16, 2017, 2:45:02 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"Wolffan" <aklwo...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:0001HW.1F940D3A01...@news.eternal-september.org...
---
E-posten er sjekket for virus av AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Rolf
Oct 16, 2017, 2:50:02 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
<r3p...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:459e7664-2c7b-442d...@googlegroups.com...
I don't see how theistic evolution can be worse than Rays preferred belief,
divine creation.
In both cases, there's a striking lack of evidence and probability, it all
relies on a fat portion of blind faith. Probably the kind that move
mountains. Why don't we see them walking?
Rolf
Sean Dillon
Oct 16, 2017, 2:55:03 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > >
> > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > >
> > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > >
> > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > >
> > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > >
> > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > >
> > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > >
> > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> >
> > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> >
>
> Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
>
> Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
No such "logic" exists. There is no innate contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and an organized effect.
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > >
> > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > >
> > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > >
> > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > >
> > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > >
> > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > >
> > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > >
> > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> >
> > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> >
>
> Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
>
> Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
Sand dunes are formed by winds on the desert. Winds are a non-intelligent cause, and yet the dunes themselves are quite neatly (and often complexly) organized. So if you have "logic" that tells you that an unintelligent cause cannot give rise to an organized, complex effect, you're "logic" is obviously wrong.
Rolf
Oct 16, 2017, 3:00:02 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"Alan Kleinman MD PhD" <klei...@sti.net> skrev i melding
news:92348a26-161e-4734...@googlegroups.com...
his horizon. DNA is not mentioned in the Bible; that's evidence it is
irrelveant. After all, God first created Adam, and then Eve (to relieve man
of his loneliness - not to make babies)making sure that she didn't have a
closely related genome. Smart guy, that god.
r3p...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 3:30:03 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Lastly, all three Atheists offer their subjective claims in the context of defending Alan's Theism and ensuing evolution.
Alan: What a grave insult to your Theism. The facts show that your Theism is counterfeit, not grounded in the Bible.
Ray
r3p...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 4:05:03 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > > >
> > > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > > >
> > > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > > >
> > > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > > >
> > > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > > >
> > > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> > >
> > > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> > >
> >
> > Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
> >
> > Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
>
> No such "logic" exists.
It's the logic Paley that used in 1802; Darwin is famous for commending that logic in his autobiography, that is, when he was a world famous Evolutionist. He spoke in the context of what he thought WHEN he accepted Paley 1802.
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > > >
> > > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > > >
> > > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > > >
> > > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > > >
> > > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > > >
> > > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> > >
> > > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> > >
> >
> > Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
> >
> > Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
>
> No such "logic" exists.
> There is no innate contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and an organized effect.
>
Disorganization corresponds to unintelligence, organization to intelligence. Sean simply restates the contradictory claim of evolutionary theory with no awareness of the logical invalidity. Again, I have shown that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
Ray
Sean Dillon
Oct 16, 2017, 4:25:02 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > > > >
> > > > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> > > >
> > > > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
> > >
> > > Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
> >
> > No such "logic" exists.
>
> It's the logic Paley that used in 1802; Darwin is famous for commending that logic in his autobiography, that is, when he was a world famous Evolutionist. He spoke in the context of what he thought WHEN he accepted Paley 1802.
No... Paley did not use the "logic" that there is an innate contradiction between an unintelligent cause and an organized/complex outcome. That's all you. Paley's argument was analogous: watches are complex and they have designer/makers, and life and the universe are far more complex, so doesn't it stand to reason that they too have a designer/maker. Never does he state that there is any logical contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and a complex effect.
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > > > >
> > > > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> > > >
> > > > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
> > >
> > > Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
> >
> > No such "logic" exists.
>
> It's the logic Paley that used in 1802; Darwin is famous for commending that logic in his autobiography, that is, when he was a world famous Evolutionist. He spoke in the context of what he thought WHEN he accepted Paley 1802.
Of course, the answer is "not necessarily," which is why Paley's entire argument doesn't hold any water.
>
> > There is no innate contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and an organized effect.
> >
>
> So asserted.
Not just asserted... proven by example. See below, regarding sand dunes. Sand dunes are both organized and complex. And yet their cause -- wind -- is unintelligent.
> > There is no innate contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and an organized effect.
> >
>
> So asserted.
>
> Disorganization corresponds to unintelligence, organization to intelligence.
Not always. Intelligent agents can cause disorganization, and unintelligent causes can lead to organized results. Example of the prior: a person shuffling a deck of cards disorganizes them. Example of the latter: See, again, the bit about sand dunes below.
> Disorganization corresponds to unintelligence, organization to intelligence.
r3p...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 11:55:02 PM10/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
> > > >
> > > > Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
> > >
> > > No such "logic" exists.
> >
> > It's the logic Paley that used in 1802; Darwin is famous for commending that logic in his autobiography, that is, when he was a world famous Evolutionist. He spoke in the context of what he thought WHEN he accepted Paley 1802.
>
> No... Paley did not use the "logic" that there is an innate contradiction between an unintelligent cause and an organized/complex outcome. That's all you.
>
Never said any such thing, anyone can fact check and confirm.
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
> > > >
> > > > Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
> > >
> > > No such "logic" exists.
> >
> > It's the logic Paley that used in 1802; Darwin is famous for commending that logic in his autobiography, that is, when he was a world famous Evolutionist. He spoke in the context of what he thought WHEN he accepted Paley 1802.
>
> No... Paley did not use the "logic" that there is an innate contradiction between an unintelligent cause and an organized/complex outcome. That's all you.
>
> Paley's argument was analogous: watches are complex and they have designer/makers, and life and a
the universe are far more complex, so doesn't it stand to reason that they too have a designer/maker. Never does he state that there is any logical contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and a complex effect.
>
Deliberate straw man.
>
> Of course, the answer is "not necessarily," which is why Paley's entire argument doesn't hold any water.
> >
> > > There is no innate contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and an organized effect.
> > >
> >
> > So asserted.
>
> Not just asserted... proven by example. See below, regarding sand dunes. Sand dunes are both organized and complex. And yet their cause -- wind -- is unintelligent.
> >
> > Disorganization corresponds to unintelligence, organization to intelligence.
>
> Not always. Intelligent agents can cause disorganization, and unintelligent causes can lead to organized results. Example of the prior: a person shuffling a deck of cards disorganizes them. Example of the latter: See, again, the bit about sand dunes below.
>
> Sean simply restates the contradictory claim of evolutionary theory with no awareness of the logical invalidity. Again, I have shown that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > > Sand dunes are formed by winds on the desert. Winds are a non-intelligent cause, and yet the dunes themselves are quite neatly (and often complexly) organized. So if you have "logic" that tells you that an unintelligent cause cannot give rise to an organized, complex effect, you're "logic" is obviously wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, don't forget, when a contradiction is identified in a sentence or phrase the same means neither can be true, these cannot exist in reality. Since the facts have established that both sides accept existence of organized complexity, accidental and unintelligent causes cannot exist.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, we know the structure of DNA is in the form of a double helix, which is a designed configuration, not a malformed or chaotic configuration as one would expect if an unintelligent or accidental cause existed. I now ask Alan to identify a commensurate amount of effects that reflect the concept of accident? When cars, for example, collide the ensuing effects do not reflect organization. Thus we see no evidence of accidental mutation or unintelligent selection in biological reality.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
Moreover, we have Sean, Burk, Wolfie, and Bob----four Atheist-Evolutionists who have jumped in the debate to help Alan, an alleged Theist who accepts existence of RMNS. Instead of giving Alan a chance to rebut first these persons have essentially let him off the hook because they've decided he definitely needs help. What a pity.
Ray
jillery
Oct 17, 2017, 12:25:02 AM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"complexity" sufficient to qualitatively disqualify sand dunes as
complex but not for example biodiversity, or any other example you
have baldly asserted to represent organized complexity.
>Moreover, we have Sean, Burk, Wolfie, and Bob----four Atheist-Evolutionists who have jumped in the debate to help Alan, an alleged Theist who accepts existence of RMNS. Instead of giving Alan a chance to rebut first these persons have essentially let him off the hook because they've decided he definitely needs help. What a pity.
be aware that those in your list above argue against the good DrDr as
strongly as they do against you.
Wolffan
Oct 17, 2017, 7:50:04 AM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017 Oct 16, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<7b811899-4b33-4433...@googlegroups.com>):
Burkhard
Oct 17, 2017, 8:15:04 AM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
>>>>>
>>>>> Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
>>>>
>>>> Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
>>>
>>> Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
>>
>> No such "logic" exists.
>
> It's the logic Paley that used in 1802; Darwin is famous for commending that logic in his autobiography, that is, when he was a world famous Evolutionist. He spoke in the context of what he thought WHEN he accepted Paley 1802.
Well, for your own rather idiosyncratic use of the word logic maybe.
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:20:02 PM UTC-7, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-7, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Alan initiated my name in these topics as a confused thinker. In response:
>>>>>
>>>>> Four extremely on-topic questions for Alan:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Where did you obtain the idea that an invisible Director created an undirected selection process and an accidental mutation phenomenon to produce organized complexity seen in biodiversity?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Alan believes in God, yet he accepts the main claim of Naturalism science----natural selection. Alan: Do you really think God approves of the starting assumptions of Naturalism science?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. And shouldn't believers accept a teleological explanation for biological production and not the explanation that all Atheists accept?
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. How do new species appear in the wild?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see if Alan can answer these questions absent confusion (fusion of contrary concepts)? Alan of course cannot. He is the confused thinker, not me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray (Christian anti-evolutionary)
>>>>
>>>> Ray, do you think that DNA exists? Do you think that DNA when it is replicated that it always produces an exact copy? And do you think that the proteins produced by difference sequences of DNA will be identical?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alan evades each question because he understands that #1 thru #3 are rhetorical, but what he does say amounts to a defense of the existence of random mutation.
>>>
>>> Both sides in the Creation/Evolution debate accept biodiversity to consist of organized complexity. But one cannot logically infer an accidental or unintelligent cause from organized effects. These contradict. Yet one can infer an Intelligent cause as Paley said a long time ago. That logic was accepted by science until the rise of Darwinism.
>>
>> No such "logic" exists.
>
> It's the logic Paley that used in 1802; Darwin is famous for commending that logic in his autobiography, that is, when he was a world famous Evolutionist. He spoke in the context of what he thought WHEN he accepted Paley 1802.
Paley isn't making an argument about logic, he (tries to)make an
empirical argument, that is that as all known objects that have the
property X (a certain degree of complexity, interlocking parts etc) are
known that be designed by humans, it is reasonable to assume that other
objects that have the same property but are known not to have been
designed by humans must have been designed by someone else.
But this is of course not a statement about word meaning, or the logic
of the term "organized" etc, that is an inductive inference based on
empirical claims.
As so often, it's difficult to know if you are genuinely confused,
express yourself badly, or both. Paley makes a contingent, empirical
argument (a logically valid one) which makes his claim interesting, but
refutable like all empirical claims, and Darwin offers that refutation.
But both are based on empirical and contingent facts, not logical
theorems, not even if you add to the theorem of logic meaning postulates
for "organized" or "complex" or "designed".
>
>> There is no innate contradiction between a non-intelligent cause and an organized effect.
>>
>
> So asserted.
>
You won't find a textbook in logic, or any thesaurus, that allows you to
derive your inference, and you have never been able to substantiate it
apart from your bare assertion.
> Disorganization corresponds to unintelligence, organization to intelligence. Sean simply restates the contradictory claim of evolutionary theory with no awareness of the logical invalidity. Again, I have shown that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
the technical meaning of "logic". There is no logical theorem, nor a
theorem of logic plus meaning postulates, that allows you to derive this
conclusion 0- if you disagree show your formal logical proof, with cites
for all the premises you are using.
The relation between unintelligence and organization is simply a claimed
factual correlation, a contingent (and wrong) statement of fact, not of
logic.
Unless you redefine in your private language "unintelligent" and
"organized" etc - which then can make your claim true by definition, but
empty.
Burkhard
Oct 17, 2017, 9:45:03 AM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
is only a necessary, not a sufficient condition for validity. And the
only one who has based his entire argument on an assertion is you I'm
afraid. We by contrast have given you a) examples where intelligence
and organization diverge, which falsify your premise. And we have given
specific models of theistic evolution. And one of the most basic results
of model theory is that if a theory has at least one model, it is
consistent.
>Since all three persons are known Atheists
> the Theism they are defending MUST be counterfeit because Atheists would never defend genuine biblical Theism.
teaching was benign and benevolent on another thread, so you are not
even consistent within your own little world.
As to the specifics of the claim, it is a) just another assertion by
you, and not a very plausible. Few people see the world in black and
white the way you do, most of us are not as ideologically blinkered, and
perfectly capable to recognize correct and valuable arguments even of
people we fundamentally disagree with.
And in any case, the defense in this case is extremely limited: pointing
out that a position is internally logically consistent is far from
endorsing that position, or considering it compelling. It merely means
it's a possible candidate for a correct theory, and not ruled out
already on the basis of logic alone.
>In support I offer the following: All three contend that God could have created by evolution----that His omnipotentence allows for the possibility. The Bible, however, says reality came into existence via interventions, yet evolutionary theory says no interventions occurred during the entire 4 billion year history of the biological earth.
You can infer however some additional claims if you add some knowledge
about how scientific theories work in general. In this specific case,
you could infer the conditional: If there was intervention, it was not
of the type that can be discovered by the means available to us, and in
such a form that it did not result in outcomes other than those that
the theory describes.
And we can again use occasionalism as one consistent model of theistic
evolution: If god has personally and directly directed every atom and
molecule (or subatomic particle, or whatever your basic building blocks
are) so that she is the direct cause of everything that happens (with
other word, there is no undirected causation at all), then all our
theories, from physics to ToE, will look exactly as they do now. The
intervention is not something we can detect even in principle, because
there would not be any unguided causation to compare it to.
This is something science can't rule out in principle, and therefore in
particular not state that it does not happen. But this also means that
your reason to believe it have to be other than scientific (i.e
theological), as science, again in principle, would not be able to give
you means to distinguish between a world where this intervention always
happens, and one where it never happens.
>Moreover, evolutionary theory specifically says their main agent, natural selection, is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Each adjective means invisible Intelligence, Director, and Guide is KNOWN not to be involved.
says that any goal or theos that is specific enough to have explanatory
value would be unknown to us. But as even stupid humans can use
unguided, undirected and unintelligent processes to achieve our goals
(e.g. when we use evolutionary algorithms in game design) this simply
reflects the limits of our current knowledge. Indeed, we frequently have
to describe processes that are most certainly directed, guided and
intelligent as if they were not, because we lack access to the goals or
the capacity to compute them all.
This happens frequently in sociology e.g. when the behavior of crowds or
traffic flows are predicted. We know that each member of the crowd
follows their own plans, but as we do not normally have knowledge of
these plans, the best we can do, and with great levels of predictive
accuracy, is to model them as if they were just random molecules
bouncing off each other (e.g. Putha, Rahul, Luca Quadrifoglio, and
Emily Zechman. "Comparing ant colony optimization and genetic algorithm
approaches for solving traffic signal coordination under oversaturation
conditions." Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 27.1
(2012): 14-28)
>So the objective claims of evolutionary theory, and biblical Theism, clearly show that our three Atheists do not have a leg to stand on.
>
> Lastly, all three Atheists offer their subjective claims in the context of defending Alan's Theism and ensuing evolution.
idiosyncratic outlier is you
>
> Alan: What a grave insult to your Theism. The facts show that your Theism is counterfeit, not grounded in the Bible.
Well, none of us claimed that evolutionary theism has to be "grounded
> Alan: What a grave insult to your Theism. The facts show that your Theism is counterfeit, not grounded in the Bible.
in" the bible. At best that it is consistent with (some readings of) the
bible (but then you remain hopelessly confused about the difference
between "lending support to" and "being consist with" - did you ever
look at one of the introduction to logic textbooks I recommended??). But
it could also be non-biblical theism altogether.
>
> Ray
>
Alan Kleinman MD PhD
Oct 17, 2017, 11:20:05 AM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
> Ray
Sean Dillon
Oct 17, 2017, 11:30:05 AM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Of course, that is far from the only example. Snowflakes too are highly organized, yet they are caused by unintelligent forces.
And again, the opposite can also be true... intelligent agents can cause disorganization, as when we shuffle a deck of cards, or demolish a building, or any of the other myriad things a person might do that increase disorder.
So any claim that there is a strict and necessary "correspondence" between intelligence and order, and unintelligence and disorder, is utter hogwash.
>
> Moreover, we have Sean, Burk, Wolfie, and Bob----four Atheist-Evolutionists who have jumped in the debate to help Alan, an alleged Theist who accepts existence of RMNS. Instead of giving Alan a chance to rebut first these persons have essentially let him off the hook because they've decided he definitely needs help. What a pity.
>
> Ray
Believe me: I'm not helping Alan. His "model" is likewise hogwash, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of biological reality. And yet, there is no essential conflict between his believing in a God, and believing that natural selection occurs. Indeed -- and I cannot point this out too many times -- natural selection is merely the reality that individuals better suited to their environment will tend to outsurvive and outbreed individuals that are worse suited. That's ALL that natural selection is. It is a reality so banal that to deny it is true is utterly perverse.
> Moreover, we have Sean, Burk, Wolfie, and Bob----four Atheist-Evolutionists who have jumped in the debate to help Alan, an alleged Theist who accepts existence of RMNS. Instead of giving Alan a chance to rebut first these persons have essentially let him off the hook because they've decided he definitely needs help. What a pity.
>
> Ray
paul.i...@gmail.com
Oct 17, 2017, 11:50:03 AM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The DrDr wrote...
> Ray, I think you don't know very much about my theism.
Ah, when two kooks disagree about their preferred brands of kookery...
(* grabs popcorn *)
> Ray, I think you don't know very much about my theism.
(* grabs popcorn *)
Bob Casanova
Oct 17, 2017, 1:25:03 PM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:25:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
content; you just don't like it. God is NOT constrained to
do only those things of which you approve, and is not
constrained by the content of the Bible.
> Since all three persons are known Atheists
Wrong AGAIN, Ray! You know no such thing, at least about me.
All you know about my religious beliefs is that I consider
yours to be a travesty at best, and disguised Satanism
(since you absolutely do NOT follow the dictates of Christ,
but invert them) at worst.
<snip the usual twisted Ray"Logic">
appeared in talk.origins, posted by r3p...@gmail.com:
>Bob, Wolfie, and Burk can be found above defending the logical validity of Theistic Evolutionism, mostly via content-less assertion.
Wrong AGAIN, Ray! My post, like Wolffan's, has specific
content; you just don't like it. God is NOT constrained to
do only those things of which you approve, and is not
constrained by the content of the Bible.
> Since all three persons are known Atheists
All you know about my religious beliefs is that I consider
yours to be a travesty at best, and disguised Satanism
(since you absolutely do NOT follow the dictates of Christ,
but invert them) at worst.
<snip the usual twisted Ray"Logic">
Bob Casanova
Oct 17, 2017, 1:30:03 PM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:49:29 -0400, the following appeared
It's Ray's default accusation for anyone who disagrees with
him. Ray's a good poster child for Satanism (the bearing of
false witness is a good start for worshipping Satan).
him. Ray's a good poster child for Satanism (the bearing of
false witness is a good start for worshipping Satan).
Ray Martinez
Oct 17, 2017, 11:30:02 PM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
>
> On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
>
Ray
Ray Martinez
Oct 17, 2017, 11:45:02 PM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
>
Corrected a smart phone spelling error above, ignore and carry on.
Ray
Sean Dillon
Oct 17, 2017, 11:55:02 PM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God, there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El, Adonai, etc.
>
> > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> >
>
> I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspomdence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> >
>
> I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspomdence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
> Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
> And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
> This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
>
> > On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
> >
>
> One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
Oct 17, 2017, 11:55:02 PM10/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ray
Sean Dillon
Oct 18, 2017, 12:05:02 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ray Martinez
Oct 18, 2017, 12:45:02 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God, there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El, Adonai, etc.
>
>
> > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > >
> >
> >
> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
>
Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up. The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed. Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
>
> > Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
>
> Nope!
Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>
> > And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
>
> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
>
> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
>
> > This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
>
> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
>
> >
> > > On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
> > >
> >
> > One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
> >
> > Ray
>
> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
jillery
Oct 18, 2017, 1:40:03 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
no "Western Society" before Gutenberg?
>> Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God, there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El, Adonai, etc.
>>
>
>Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
son of Abraham and half-brother of Isaac, and that Islam was the
inheritor and repository of Greek learning while Western civilization
festered in feudalism and stupidity, and that Islam was the spark
which restored the light of progress back to Western Civilization.
>> > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
>> >
>> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
>>
>
>Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
with His Universe. It's almost certain Bohr would have told you the
same thing.
>The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed. Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
>
>> > Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
>>
>> Nope!
>
>So decreed!
>
>Show me random in teleological epistemology?
arbitrary, every time it assigns purpose to a natural cause.
>> > And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
>>
>> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
>
>Yep.
>
>> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
>>
>
>Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
>> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
>>
>
>Not in dispute. We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
are no coincidences.
>> > This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
>>
>> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
>>
>
>Non-sequitur/evasion. And gravity is clearly designed. And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
whole question of what is Designed.
>> > > On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
>> > >
>> >
>> > One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
>
>Ray
You're welcome.
Andre G. Isaak
Oct 18, 2017, 1:50:02 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In article <04407074-43b2-42e7...@googlegroups.com>,
That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of 'Western Society'.
> > Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And
> > "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian
> > God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God,
> > there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El,
> > Adonai, etc.
> >
>
> Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect
> of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as
> Theos.
'Allah' is simply that Arabic word for 'God', used by both Muslims and
Christians, among others.
If you are referring specifically to the God of Islam, there is no
reason to exclude that from 'Judaeo-Christian' (though most would prefer
the term 'Abrahamic') given that it draws extensively on both Christian
and Jewish tradition.
I've always found the term 'Judaeo-Christian' to be rather odd -- while
Christianity may have its roots in Judaeism, the two are very different
since Christianity incorporates a significant amount of Hellenic
concepts which are absent from Judaeism. There is no reason to treat
Judaeism and Christianity as being a closely related group which
excludes Islam, Samaritanism, Yezidiism, Druzism, etc.
> >
> > > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined
> > > > and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random
> > > supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does
> > > not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the
> > > work of Mind.
> > >
> > Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply
> > doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> >
>
> Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
Einstein was referring metaphorically to interpretations of QM and the
EPR paradox in particular; this is one area where Einstein has
subsequently been shown to have been wrong. But pay special attention to
the word 'metaphorically' above: he wasn't making any sort of
theological claim.
Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
> > Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And
> > "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian
> > God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God,
> > there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El,
> > Adonai, etc.
> >
>
> Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect
> of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as
> Theos.
Christians, among others.
If you are referring specifically to the God of Islam, there is no
reason to exclude that from 'Judaeo-Christian' (though most would prefer
the term 'Abrahamic') given that it draws extensively on both Christian
and Jewish tradition.
I've always found the term 'Judaeo-Christian' to be rather odd -- while
Christianity may have its roots in Judaeism, the two are very different
since Christianity incorporates a significant amount of Hellenic
concepts which are absent from Judaeism. There is no reason to treat
Judaeism and Christianity as being a closely related group which
excludes Islam, Samaritanism, Yezidiism, Druzism, etc.
> >
> > > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined
> > > > and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random
> > > supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does
> > > not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the
> > > work of Mind.
> > >
> > Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply
> > doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> >
>
> Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
EPR paradox in particular; this is one area where Einstein has
subsequently been shown to have been wrong. But pay special attention to
the word 'metaphorically' above: he wasn't making any sort of
theological claim.
Andre
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Wolffan
Oct 18, 2017, 5:20:04 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017 Oct 17, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<52374989-7f96-4c22...@googlegroups.com>):
no, you’re a satanic liar ‘cause you lie all the time, even when the
truth woukd server your purpose.
(in article<52374989-7f96-4c22...@googlegroups.com>):
truth woukd server your purpose.
Sean Dillon
Oct 18, 2017, 9:15:03 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
And it is fine if you want to call your Christian God Theos... so long as you don't use this as a basis to wrongly conclude that Theism is about your Christian God specifically. Theism is about any god(s) at all, of any sort, not just the God you worship.
>
> >
> > > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
> > >
> > Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> >
>
> Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
> The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed. Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
>
> > > Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
> >
> > Nope!
>
> So decreed!
>
> Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>
> >
> > > And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
> >
> > First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
> >
>
> Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
No, that's the opposite of what I said above. Hint: =/ is the notation for "does not equate to."
> >
> > > And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
> >
> > First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
> >
>
> Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
Anyway, if snowflake development can be a "designed process," then why can't evolution be a "designed process?" Snowflake formation occurs unguided, undirected, and unintelligently on the basis of (you claim) a "designed process." So why could the same not be true of evolution? Who is to say that God didn't set up the universe in such a way that evolution would occur without demanding His constant interference with it?
>
> > A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
> >
>
> Not in dispute. We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
So... an intelligent agent caused disorganization. That contradicts your thesis that disorganization "corresponds" with non-intelligence.
> > A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
> >
>
> Not in dispute. We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
>
> > > This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
> >
> > Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
> >
>
> Non-sequitur/evasion. And gravity is clearly designed. And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
Well no, it isn't "clearly" designed. But I accept that you see it that way. So again, in light of that: whether it was designed, it is now an "unguided, undirected, uninteligent" process. So if God could design the unguided, undirected, unintelligent process of gravity, why could He not have also have designed the "unguided, undirected, unintelligent" process of evolution?
> > > This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
> >
> > Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
> >
>
> Non-sequitur/evasion. And gravity is clearly designed. And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
Burkhard
Oct 18, 2017, 10:25:05 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
(though with some corruptions and additions) Jesus is revered as a
prophet and Mary is also given a special role too.
>the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
is the belief in any deity, the way the term is used in religious
studies and the history of ideas.
>
>>
>>>> You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
>>>
>> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
>>
>
> Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
time in fact.
> The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed.
intelligently designed (the lottery draw), others are not (the pattern
of raindrops on my window). That alone proves that there is no
systematic correspondence between them
Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that
you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
>
>>> Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
>>
>> Nope!
>
> So decreed!
>
> Show me random in teleological epistemology?
For heaven's sake, have you ever even read it?
>
>>
>>> And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
>>
>> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
>>
>
> Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
No, he says the opposite
>> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
>>
>
> Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
>
>> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
>>
>
> Not in dispute.
Well yes, you dispute it above. Here a random result comes from an
>> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
>>
>
> Not in dispute.
intelligent cause.
>We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
be possible.
>
>>> This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
>>
>> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
>>
>
> Non-sequitur/evasion.
comments are directly addressing yours, so not an evasion,and he gives
the precise reason in the form of a modus tollens (a.k.a. a
falsification), so also not a non sequitur.
>And gravity is clearly designed.
to explain to you several times, that simply means you either become a
deist or an occasionalist, and in either case a theistic evolutionist,
once you think through the logical consequences of this position.
There are just two ways the statement "gravity is designed" makes sense.
In one God initially designs gravity (and arguably the other elemental
forces)But to have gravity as a systematic and recurrent pattern then
means God does not directly cause any individual event of something
falling, but leaves gravity to do the job. So God is not the direct
cause of the rock rolling down the hill, but an indirect cause several
steps removed, when gravity was created. (That type of chain reasoning
is quite in line with Paley btw, who argues that as long as the initial
conditions are set by the designer, the subsequent acts of replication
can then be left well alone, and we'd still be entitled to call the
ultimate outcome as designed too.) That of course becomes a form of deism.
Or you can go down the route of occasionalism, where God is the direct
cause of everything that happens, and we simply describe aspects of the
patterns that His behaviour with the term "gravity".
But either way, that means because everything then is designed, "being
designed" becomes coextensive with "exist" and can be dropped from all
equations without loss of information. If asked "why did the apple fall
on your head", the answer is in either case simply "because of gravity"
not "because God created X years ago the universe, and with it gravity,
and then through a long chain of causal events, eventually there was an
apple, it's stem gave way and gravity made it fall on my head", nor
"God, in his aspect as gravity, made it fall on my head." But then of
course, "because of gravity" is also the answer an atheist would give,
so it becomes an issue for metaphysics, not science.
And in the next step, biology reduces to physics, ultimately. So we can
say in the same way that there was a mutation in the DNA of a species
(mutation being nothing but forces such as gravity having a particle
collide with DNA) etc etc.
And in the same way we can drop God from the explanation in the case of
physics, we can drop him in the case of biology. Because everything is
designed, design stops playing any explanatory role, and becomes
redundant for scientific purposes.
So you have defined yourself correct, which is always possible, but
which the "cost" that your position now, if applied consistently, simply
becomes a form of theistic evolution.
>And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
Burkhard
Oct 18, 2017, 11:30:05 AM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
everything else. They can form quite intricate geometric patterns, such
as here:
https://www.wired.com/2011/07/sand-patterns-gallery/
> Another good example of the illogical thinking of an Evolutionist.
>
> Moreover, we have Sean, Burk, Wolfie, and Bob----four Atheist-Evolutionists who have jumped in the debate to help Alan, an alleged Theist who accepts existence of RMNS. Instead of giving Alan a chance to rebut first these persons have essentially let him off the hook because they've decided he definitely needs help.
you post on a public forum, your mistakes become public, and people will
address them
> What a pity.
>
> Ray
>
Ray Martinez
Oct 18, 2017, 1:05:04 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ray
Ray Martinez
Oct 18, 2017, 1:20:04 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ray
Sean Dillon
Oct 18, 2017, 2:25:03 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
But I can tell you the difference between epistemology and metaphysics in general: epistemologies are theories of KNOWLEDGE. They regard what can be known, and how. They do NOT make statements or assumptions about what EXISTS, but only what can KNOW and HOW. Metaphysics, on the other hand, regard the fundamental nature of reality.
So to give examples for contrast:
Agnosticism is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL position. It regards what we can KNOW about the existence of Deity. Agnosticism says that we do not or cannot KNOW which of the following statements is correct: "Deity exists" or "Deity does not exist."
By contrast, Theism and Atheism are metaphysical positions. They regard what is ultimately TRUE about reality: either that Deity DOES exist or Deity DOESN'T exist.
So epistemological naturalism, as best I understand the term, says that empirical evidence from nature is the only way we can KNOW things. Epistemological naturalism does NOT state, assume, or conclude that the natural is all that exists, because epistemologies aren't ABOUT what exists.
By contrast, metaphysical naturalism is a claim about ultimate reality. It DOES claim that only the natural exists.
Bob Casanova
Oct 18, 2017, 2:55:03 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:49:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:
And that's not an "observation" which implies it's correct.
Since many religious believers accept naturalism (and where
did "epistemological" come from" Science deals in
methodological naturalism), your "observation" is shown to
be incorrect, and merely a product of your imagination.
Here come those pesky Jesuit (and Hindu, and Islamic, and
Buddhist, and...) atheists again...
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > > > And, yes, there are atheist total fucking fruitcakes,
>> >> > > > > though very few of them are as totally wigged out as you are.
>> >> > > > > though very few of them are as totally wigged out as you are.
>> >> Bob, Wolfie, and Burk can be found above defending the logical validity of
>> >> Theistic Evolutionism, mostly via content-less assertion. Since all three
>> >> persons are known Atheists
>> >
>> >not me, you lying bottom-feeding useless shit-eater.
>>
>> It's Ray's default accusation for anyone who disagrees with
>> him. Ray's a good poster child for Satanism (the bearing of
>> false witness is a good start for worshipping Satan).
>> >> Theistic Evolutionism, mostly via content-less assertion. Since all three
>> >> persons are known Atheists
>> >
>> >not me, you lying bottom-feeding useless shit-eater.
>>
>> It's Ray's default accusation for anyone who disagrees with
>> him. Ray's a good poster child for Satanism (the bearing of
>> false witness is a good start for worshipping Satan).
>Imagine that! I'm a satanic liar for observing that acceptance of epistemological Naturalism corresponds to Atheism.
If the Foo shits...
And that's not an "observation" which implies it's correct.
Since many religious believers accept naturalism (and where
did "epistemological" come from" Science deals in
methodological naturalism), your "observation" is shown to
be incorrect, and merely a product of your imagination.
Here come those pesky Jesuit (and Hindu, and Islamic, and
Buddhist, and...) atheists again...
Bob Casanova
Oct 18, 2017, 2:55:03 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:00:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:
Ummm..."methodological" instead of "metaphysical", maybe?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:
Sean Dillon
Oct 18, 2017, 3:00:02 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova
Oct 18, 2017, 3:00:03 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:35:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
Ray? Think? Yeah, right...
But I have an alternative to Ray's assertion: Most of
Western society has been atheistic, and a good bit of the
theistic part has been Islamic.
I'm talking about since the invention of the integrated
circuit.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
But I have an alternative to Ray's assertion: Most of
Western society has been atheistic, and a good bit of the
theistic part has been Islamic.
I'm talking about since the invention of the integrated
circuit.
Bob Casanova
Oct 18, 2017, 3:05:02 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:04:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:
are known Atheists".
Whether it's a lie of commission or a lie of omission (aka
"ignorance"), it's a lie, and since you've been told
repeatedly that it *is* a lie we have to assume it's one of
commission.
> Here is your chance to nail me, now do it or drop your accusation?
Done.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> > Imagine that! I'm a satanic liar for observing that acceptance of
>> > epistemological Naturalism corresponds to Atheism.
>> > epistemological Naturalism corresponds to Atheism.
>> no, you’re a satanic liar ‘cause you lie all the time, even when the
>> truth woukd server your purpose.
>Where is the lie in what I said?
From the above: "Bob, Wolfie, and Burk...all three persons
>> truth woukd server your purpose.
>Where is the lie in what I said?
are known Atheists".
Whether it's a lie of commission or a lie of omission (aka
"ignorance"), it's a lie, and since you've been told
repeatedly that it *is* a lie we have to assume it's one of
commission.
> Here is your chance to nail me, now do it or drop your accusation?
Burkhard
Oct 18, 2017, 4:20:05 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
the topic, it's about something else entirely. I tried to explain this
to Ray once, with choice references to the literature on epistemological
naturalism, starting with Quine's work where he coined the term, but as
always Ray stays with his mistakes.
Burkhard
Oct 18, 2017, 4:25:02 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
arguably atheists (well, even that could be debated, as a matter of
fact) but not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists. I know a couple
of atheists e.g. who are set theoretical platonists, and also a few who
are mind-body dualists. And quite a number of Victorian atheists
believed in ghosts etc
Ray Martinez
Oct 18, 2017, 5:40:05 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
> >the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
> >
> as maybe, but the word under discussion was theism, and that certainly
> is the belief in any deity, the way the term is used in religious
> studies and the history of ideas.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>> You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
> >>>
> >> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> >>
> >
> > Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
>
> But that does not mean other intelligent agents can't - we do it all the
> time in fact.
>
> > The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed.
>
> Nope they are a simple statement of fact. Some random events are
> intelligently designed (the lottery draw), others are not (the pattern
> of raindrops on my window). That alone proves that there is no
> systematic correspondence between them
> >
> Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that
> you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
> >
> >>> Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
> >>
> >> Nope!
> >
> > So decreed!
> >
> > Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>
> There are at least 70 references to "casting lots" in the Bible alone.
> For heaven's sake, have you ever even read it?
Go ahead and choose another example if you still think that you have a point.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
> >>
> >> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Erm, that's the "non-identical" sign he is using there
> >
> >> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
> >>
> >
> > Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
>
> No, he says the opposite
> >
> >> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
> >>
> >
> > Not in dispute.
>
> Well yes, you dispute it above. Here a random result comes from an
> intelligent cause.
>
> >We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
>
> Yes, and if you applied your own ideas consistently, that should never
> be possible.
>
> >
> >>> This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
> >>
> >> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
> >>
> >
> > Non-sequitur/evasion.
>
> Really, you should look up the meaning of both words sometimes. His
> comments are directly addressing yours, so not an evasion,and he gives
> the precise reason in the form of a modus tollens (a.k.a. a
> falsification), so also not a non sequitur.
>
>
> >And gravity is clearly designed.
>
> See, that is indeed a consequence of your position. But as we have tried
> to explain to you several times, that simply means you either become a
> deist or an occasionalist, and in either case a theistic evolutionist,
> once you think through the logical consequences of this position.
>
> There are just two ways the statement "gravity is designed" makes sense.
> In one God initially designs gravity (and arguably the other elemental
> forces)But to have gravity as a systematic and recurrent pattern then
> means God does not directly cause any individual event of something
> falling, but leaves gravity to do the job. So God is not the direct
> cause of the rock rolling down the hill, but an indirect cause several
> steps removed, when gravity was created. (That type of chain reasoning
> is quite in line with Paley btw, who argues that as long as the initial
> conditions are set by the designer, the subsequent acts of replication
> can then be left well alone, and we'd still be entitled to call the
> ultimate outcome as designed too.) That of course becomes a form of deism.
>
> Or you can go down the route of occasionalism, where God is the direct
> cause of everything that happens, and we simply describe aspects of the
> patterns that His behaviour with the term "gravity".
>
> But either way, that means because everything then is designed, "being
> designed" becomes coextensive with "exist" and can be dropped from all
> equations without loss of information. If asked "why did the apple fall
> on your head", the answer is in either case simply "because of gravity"
> not "because God created X years ago the universe, and with it gravity,
> and then through a long chain of causal events, eventually there was an
> apple, it's stem gave way and gravity made it fall on my head", nor
> "God, in his aspect as gravity, made it fall on my head." But then of
> course, "because of gravity" is also the answer an atheist would give,
> so it becomes an issue for metaphysics, not science.
>
> And in the next step, biology reduces to physics, ultimately. So we can
> say in the same way that there was a mutation in the DNA of a species
> (mutation being nothing but forces such as gravity having a particle
> collide with DNA) etc etc.
>
> And in the same way we can drop God from the explanation in the case of
> physics, we can drop him in the case of biology. Because everything is
> designed, design stops playing any explanatory role, and becomes
> redundant for scientific purposes.
>
> So you have defined yourself correct, which is always possible, but
> which the "cost" that your position now, if applied consistently, simply
> becomes a form of theistic evolution.
Theism: The God of the Bible reveals Himself as a person who is knowable. Knowability implies involvement with reality; hence interventions like special creation. From cover to cover, in the Bible, God involves Himself in reality. The ultimate involvement: Incarnation of Christ. And it's the testimony of every Christian that they KNOW Christ whereas before they did not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
>
> No, he said the exact opposite thee was a "/" through the "+"
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>> On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>
> >> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
> >
> > Ray
> >
Sean Dillon
Oct 18, 2017, 6:05:03 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
> >
> > >the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
> > >
> > as maybe, but the word under discussion was theism, and that certainly
> > is the belief in any deity, the way the term is used in religious
> > studies and the history of ideas.
>
> In Western literature (exactly why I pegged the beginning of modern Western civilization as coinciding with invention of the printing press) it is assumed, unless stated otherwise, that Theism is referring to biblical Theism because the West has never worshiped any other God.
>
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>>> You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
> > >>>
> > >> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
> >
> > But that does not mean other intelligent agents can't - we do it all the
> > time in fact.
>
> We were talking about Theism, remember? Nobody denies that humans play dice.
>
> >
> > > The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed.
> >
> > Nope they are a simple statement of fact. Some random events are
> > intelligently designed (the lottery draw), others are not (the pattern
> > of raindrops on my window). That alone proves that there is no
> > systematic correspondence between them
>
> Burk includes man-made random events as supporting invisible Intelligence doing the same in nature. His evidence does not support his conclusion. If random supports the work of God why isn't random mutation considered evidence supporting the work of God?
>
> > >
> > Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that
> > you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
> > >
> > >>> Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
> > >>
> > >> Nope!
> > >
> > > So decreed!
> > >
> > > Show me random in teleological epistemology?
> >
> > There are at least 70 references to "casting lots" in the Bible alone.
> > For heaven's sake, have you ever even read it?
>
> The fact that the Bible preserves and reports persons casting lots does not necessarily mean God initiated or God approved methodology. In the Book of Acts, for example, when the apostles cast lots to see who would replace Judas the lot fell on a person who is never mentioned again in the New Testament. And no where in the New Testament will one find that God told the apostles to replace Judas by casting lots. God chose Paul to replace Judas shortly thereafter.
>
> Go ahead and choose another example if you still think that you have a point.
>
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
> > >>
> > >> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > Erm, that's the "non-identical" sign he is using there
>
> Didn't realize that....so I will ignore points below based on this misunderstanding of mine.
>
> > >
> > >> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
> >
> > No, he says the opposite
> > >
> > >> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not in dispute.
> >
> > Well yes, you dispute it above. Here a random result comes from an
> > intelligent cause.
>
> How does a human activity support a Divine activity?
You're shifting the goalposts from your original claim which was simply that INTELLIGENT causes do not "correspond" with random effects. That claim made no mention of God. If you want to argue that DIVINE causes cannot correspond with random effects, that's an entirely different argument.
> > >
> > Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that
> > you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
> > >
> > >>> Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
> > >>
> > >> Nope!
> > >
> > > So decreed!
> > >
> > > Show me random in teleological epistemology?
> >
> > There are at least 70 references to "casting lots" in the Bible alone.
> > For heaven's sake, have you ever even read it?
>
> The fact that the Bible preserves and reports persons casting lots does not necessarily mean God initiated or God approved methodology. In the Book of Acts, for example, when the apostles cast lots to see who would replace Judas the lot fell on a person who is never mentioned again in the New Testament. And no where in the New Testament will one find that God told the apostles to replace Judas by casting lots. God chose Paul to replace Judas shortly thereafter.
>
> Go ahead and choose another example if you still think that you have a point.
>
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
> > >>
> > >> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > Erm, that's the "non-identical" sign he is using there
>
> Didn't realize that....so I will ignore points below based on this misunderstanding of mine.
>
> > >
> > >> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
> >
> > No, he says the opposite
> > >
> > >> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not in dispute.
> >
> > Well yes, you dispute it above. Here a random result comes from an
> > intelligent cause.
>
> How does a human activity support a Divine activity?
>
> >
> > >We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
> >
> > Yes, and if you applied your own ideas consistently, that should never
> > be possible.
>
> Baffling!
>
> >
> > >
> > >>> This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
> > >>
> > >> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Non-sequitur/evasion.
> >
> > Really, you should look up the meaning of both words sometimes. His
> > comments are directly addressing yours, so not an evasion,and he gives
> > the precise reason in the form of a modus tollens (a.k.a. a
> > falsification), so also not a non sequitur.
>
> Sean's reply has nothing to do with what I said about random mutation and natural selection. Sean ignored my specifics and launched into gravity.
Gravity was the counter-example to your claim that non-random and unintelligent contradict. They do NOT contradict, as evidenced by gravity.
> >
> > >We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
> >
> > Yes, and if you applied your own ideas consistently, that should never
> > be possible.
>
> Baffling!
>
> >
> > >
> > >>> This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
> > >>
> > >> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Non-sequitur/evasion.
> >
> > Really, you should look up the meaning of both words sometimes. His
> > comments are directly addressing yours, so not an evasion,and he gives
> > the precise reason in the form of a modus tollens (a.k.a. a
> > falsification), so also not a non sequitur.
>
> Sean's reply has nothing to do with what I said about random mutation and natural selection. Sean ignored my specifics and launched into gravity.
>
> Theism: The God of the Bible reveals Himself as a person who is knowable. Knowability implies involvement with reality; hence interventions like special creation. From cover to cover, in the Bible, God involves Himself in reality. The ultimate involvement: Incarnation of Christ. And it's the testimony of every Christian that they KNOW Christ whereas before they did not.
Ray Martinez
Oct 18, 2017, 6:15:03 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
>
> >> Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God, there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El, Adonai, etc.
> >>
> >
> >Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
>
>
> Apparently you don't know that Islam traces its roots back to Ishmael,
> son of Abraham and half-brother of Isaac, and that Islam was the
> inheritor and repository of Greek learning while Western civilization
> festered in feudalism and stupidity, and that Islam was the spark
> which restored the light of progress back to Western Civilization.
>
>
> >> > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
> >> >
> >> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> >>
> >
> >Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
>
>
> Even Bohr recognized that even Einstein shouldn't tell God what to do
> with His Universe. It's almost certain Bohr would have told you the
> same thing.
>
>
> >The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed. Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
> >
> >> > Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
> >>
> >> Nope!
> >
> >So decreed!
> >
> >Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>
>
> Since you asked, teleological epistemology is random, meaning
> arbitrary, every time it assigns purpose to a natural cause.
>
>
> >> > And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
> >>
> >> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
>
>
> You read incorrectly "=/" mean NOT equal, the opposite of equal.
>
>
> >> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
> >>
> >
> >Not in dispute. We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
>
>
> Yes, you have already said you think all effects are designed, there
> are no coincidences.
>
>
> >> > This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
> >>
> >> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
> >>
> >
> >Non-sequitur/evasion. And gravity is clearly designed. And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
>
>
> Like I said above, you think everything is designed. Which moots the
> whole question of what is Designed.
But remember, Paley's stone is not designed. Creationism shown superior, again, right here. By Popperian falsification standards we can say that Paley's stone renders design falsifiable and thus scientific by said standards.
>
>
> >> > > On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
> >> >
> >> > Ray
> >>
> >> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
> >
> >Ray
>
>
> Since you admit you don't understand Evolution, that makes you even.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
Ray
Ray Martinez
Oct 18, 2017, 6:30:02 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
> > > Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And
> > > "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian
> > > God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God,
> > > there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El,
> > > Adonai, etc.
> > >
> >
> > Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect
> > of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as
> > Theos.
>
> 'Allah' is simply that Arabic word for 'God', used by both Muslims and
> Christians, among others.
>
> If you are referring specifically to the God of Islam, there is no
> reason to exclude that from 'Judaeo-Christian' (though most would prefer
> the term 'Abrahamic') given that it draws extensively on both Christian
> and Jewish tradition.
We know both religions, Judeo-Christian and Islamic, are classified as Abrahamic. But the two groups are separate, not the same by any means.
>
> I've always found the term 'Judaeo-Christian' to be rather odd -- while
> Christianity may have its roots in Judaeism, the two are very different
> since Christianity incorporates a significant amount of Hellenic
> concepts which are absent from Judaeism. There is no reason to treat
> Judaeism and Christianity as being a closely related group which
> excludes Islam, Samaritanism, Yezidiism, Druzism, etc.
>
> > >
> > > > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined
> > > > > and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random
> > > > supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does
> > > > not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the
> > > > work of Mind.
> > > >
> > > Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply
> > > doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> > >
> >
> > Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
>
> Einstein was referring metaphorically to interpretations of QM and the
> EPR paradox in particular; this is one area where Einstein has
> subsequently been shown to have been wrong. But pay special attention to
> the word 'metaphorically' above: he wasn't making any sort of
> theological claim.
Ray
Sean Dillon
Oct 18, 2017, 7:15:02 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>
> >
> > > > Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And
> > > > "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian
> > > > God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God,
> > > > there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El,
> > > > Adonai, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect
> > > of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as
> > > Theos.
> >
> > 'Allah' is simply that Arabic word for 'God', used by both Muslims and
> > Christians, among others.
>
> But Allah and Jehovah are two different deities----that's the point. Christians don't refer to Jehovah as Allah; and Muslims certainly don't refer to Allah as Jehovah. If they did they would find their head in a basket within minutes.
>
> >
> > If you are referring specifically to the God of Islam, there is no
> > reason to exclude that from 'Judaeo-Christian' (though most would prefer
> > the term 'Abrahamic') given that it draws extensively on both Christian
> > and Jewish tradition.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> We know both religions, Judeo-Christian and Islamic, are classified as Abrahamic. But the two groups are separate, not the same by any means.
>
> >
> > I've always found the term 'Judaeo-Christian' to be rather odd -- while
> > Christianity may have its roots in Judaeism, the two are very different
> > since Christianity incorporates a significant amount of Hellenic
> > concepts which are absent from Judaeism. There is no reason to treat
> > Judaeism and Christianity as being a closely related group which
> > excludes Islam, Samaritanism, Yezidiism, Druzism, etc.
>
> Christ is the Son of the O.T. God; hence Judeo-Christian.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined
> > > > > > and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random
> > > > > supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does
> > > > > not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the
> > > > > work of Mind.
> > > > >
> > > > Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply
> > > > doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
> >
> > Einstein was referring metaphorically to interpretations of QM and the
> > EPR paradox in particular; this is one area where Einstein has
> > subsequently been shown to have been wrong. But pay special attention to
> > the word 'metaphorically' above: he wasn't making any sort of
> > theological claim.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that "metaphor" is not about reality? And where did you obtain the idea that Einstein didn't mean what he said? Remember, we are told that scientists speak literally and unless context says otherwise we are to understand what scientists say in a literal sense.
>
> Ray
Wolffan
Oct 18, 2017, 8:45:02 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017 Oct 18, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<0e02aeb7-29f2-4555...@googlegroups.com>):
here’s the lie, scum-maggot:
> > > > > Bob, Wolfie, and Burk can be found above defending the logical validity of
> > > > > Theistic Evolutionism, mostly via content-less assertion. Since all three
> > > > > persons are known Atheists
As I, for one, am not a ‘known atheist’, this is at the very least
deliberate misinformation. As your standard operating procedure is to label
anyone and everyone whose beliefs differ from yours by the smallest iota an
atheist, this escalates to the status of a deliberate, malice aforethought,
lie.
now eat shit and die.
(in article<0e02aeb7-29f2-4555...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > > Bob, Wolfie, and Burk can be found above defending the logical validity of
> > > > > Theistic Evolutionism, mostly via content-less assertion. Since all three
> > > > > persons are known Atheists
deliberate misinformation. As your standard operating procedure is to label
anyone and everyone whose beliefs differ from yours by the smallest iota an
atheist, this escalates to the status of a deliberate, malice aforethought,
lie.
now eat shit and die.
Ray Martinez
Oct 18, 2017, 11:15:02 PM10/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Wolfie is an Evolutionist who accepts naturalism philosophy to interpret and explain scientific evidence, and he argues tooth and nail against design and factual validity of the Bible. So I did in fact have knowledge that Wolfie was an Atheist, which flatly contradicts his accusation.
Ray
Andre G. Isaak
Oct 19, 2017, 12:00:03 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In article <b115928b-6353-4631...@googlegroups.com>,
same thing either -- the latter refers specifically to the New Testament
concept of god among (trinitarian) Christians; the former also includes
the Jewish concept of god which is decidedly non-triune.
Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:25:05 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Allah is not Judeo-Christian;
> >
> > Of course he is. That's why the OT is considered word of God in Islam
> > (though with some corruptions and additions) Jesus is revered as a
> > prophet and Mary is also given a special role too.
>
> Allah and the Triune God of the Bible are two different deities. So your
> error is as elementary as they come.
The Judaeo-Christian God and the "Triune God of the Bible" are not the
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:25:05 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Allah is not Judeo-Christian;
> >
> > Of course he is. That's why the OT is considered word of God in Islam
> > (though with some corruptions and additions) Jesus is revered as a
> > prophet and Mary is also given a special role too.
>
> Allah and the Triune God of the Bible are two different deities. So your
> error is as elementary as they come.
same thing either -- the latter refers specifically to the New Testament
concept of god among (trinitarian) Christians; the former also includes
the Jewish concept of god which is decidedly non-triune.
Andre G. Isaak
Oct 19, 2017, 12:20:02 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In article <eb1f27ab-527a-4a4d...@googlegroups.com>,
Society'. I sense shifting goal-posts.
> >
> > > > Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek.
> > > > And
> > > > "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or
> > > > Christian
> > > > God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian
> > > > God,
> > > > there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El,
> > > > Adonai, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular
> > > aspect
> > > of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical
> > > God as
> > > Theos.
> >
> > 'Allah' is simply that Arabic word for 'God', used by both Muslims and
> > Christians, among others.
>
> But Allah and Jehovah are two different deities----that's the point.
> Christians don't refer to Jehovah as Allah;
Clearly you've never met any Palestinian or Syrian or Egyptian
Christians. Yes, they refer to Jehovah as 'Allah', just as French
Christians refer to him as 'Dieu' and Russian Christians refer to him as
'Bog'.
> and Muslims certainly don't refer
> to Allah as Jehovah. If they did they would find their head in a basket
> within minutes.
>
> >
> > If you are referring specifically to the God of Islam, there is no
> > reason to exclude that from 'Judaeo-Christian' (though most would prefer
> > the term 'Abrahamic') given that it draws extensively on both Christian
> > and Jewish tradition.
>
> Nonsense.
What part of the above is nonsense? Be specific.
> We know both religions, Judeo-Christian and Islamic, are classified as
> Abrahamic. But the two groups are separate, not the same by any means.
Why are you willing to accept the link between the Jewish and Christian
Gods, but not the Islamic God?
The Christian God is based on the Hebrew God (albeit a somewhat changed
interpretation thereof), though Christian also add the concept of Jesus
as Messiah which Jews reject.
The Islamic God is based on the Hebrew God (albeit a somewhat changed
interpretation thereof heavily influenced by the Christian Concept of
God), though Islam also adds the concept of Jesus and Mohammed as
prophets.
I'm willing to accept the view that these are three different gods, all
derived from a common source, or the view that these are three different
interpretations of a single god, but not the view that Jews and
Christians worship the same god while muslims worship an entirely
different god.
> >
> > I've always found the term 'Judaeo-Christian' to be rather odd -- while
> > Christianity may have its roots in Judaeism, the two are very different
> > since Christianity incorporates a significant amount of Hellenic
> > concepts which are absent from Judaeism. There is no reason to treat
> > Judaeism and Christianity as being a closely related group which
> > excludes Islam, Samaritanism, Yezidiism, Druzism, etc.
>
> Christ is the Son of the O.T. God; hence Judeo-Christian.
And Isa (Jesus) and Mohammed are Prophets of the O.T. God.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is
> > > > > > predetermined
> > > > > > and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random
> > > > > supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept
> > > > > does
> > > > > not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting
> > > > > the
> > > > > work of Mind.
> > > > >
> > > > Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply
> > > > doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
> >
> > Einstein was referring metaphorically to interpretations of QM and the
> > EPR paradox in particular; this is one area where Einstein has
> > subsequently been shown to have been wrong. But pay special attention to
> > the word 'metaphorically' above: he wasn't making any sort of
> > theological claim.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that "metaphor" is not about reality? And where
> did you obtain the idea that Einstein didn't mean what he said?
Perhaps by reading Einstein in context?
<http://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015
-11>
Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > In article <04407074-43b2-42e7...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm talking about since invention of the printing press.
> >
> > That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of 'Western Society'.
>
> No, it's a good starting point for modern Western society: ability to
> publish.
So now you're shifting from 'Western Society' to 'Modern Western
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > In article <04407074-43b2-42e7...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ray Martinez <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm talking about since invention of the printing press.
> >
> > That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of 'Western Society'.
>
> No, it's a good starting point for modern Western society: ability to
> publish.
Society'. I sense shifting goal-posts.
> >
> > > > Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek.
> > > > And
> > > > "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or
> > > > Christian
> > > > God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian
> > > > God,
> > > > there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El,
> > > > Adonai, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular
> > > aspect
> > > of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical
> > > God as
> > > Theos.
> >
> > 'Allah' is simply that Arabic word for 'God', used by both Muslims and
> > Christians, among others.
>
> But Allah and Jehovah are two different deities----that's the point.
> Christians don't refer to Jehovah as Allah;
Christians. Yes, they refer to Jehovah as 'Allah', just as French
Christians refer to him as 'Dieu' and Russian Christians refer to him as
'Bog'.
> and Muslims certainly don't refer
> to Allah as Jehovah. If they did they would find their head in a basket
> within minutes.
>
> >
> > If you are referring specifically to the God of Islam, there is no
> > reason to exclude that from 'Judaeo-Christian' (though most would prefer
> > the term 'Abrahamic') given that it draws extensively on both Christian
> > and Jewish tradition.
>
> Nonsense.
> We know both religions, Judeo-Christian and Islamic, are classified as
> Abrahamic. But the two groups are separate, not the same by any means.
Gods, but not the Islamic God?
The Christian God is based on the Hebrew God (albeit a somewhat changed
interpretation thereof), though Christian also add the concept of Jesus
as Messiah which Jews reject.
The Islamic God is based on the Hebrew God (albeit a somewhat changed
interpretation thereof heavily influenced by the Christian Concept of
God), though Islam also adds the concept of Jesus and Mohammed as
prophets.
I'm willing to accept the view that these are three different gods, all
derived from a common source, or the view that these are three different
interpretations of a single god, but not the view that Jews and
Christians worship the same god while muslims worship an entirely
different god.
> >
> > I've always found the term 'Judaeo-Christian' to be rather odd -- while
> > Christianity may have its roots in Judaeism, the two are very different
> > since Christianity incorporates a significant amount of Hellenic
> > concepts which are absent from Judaeism. There is no reason to treat
> > Judaeism and Christianity as being a closely related group which
> > excludes Islam, Samaritanism, Yezidiism, Druzism, etc.
>
> Christ is the Son of the O.T. God; hence Judeo-Christian.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is
> > > > > > predetermined
> > > > > > and nothing is random and there is no free will.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random
> > > > > supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept
> > > > > does
> > > > > not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting
> > > > > the
> > > > > work of Mind.
> > > > >
> > > > Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply
> > > > doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
> >
> > Einstein was referring metaphorically to interpretations of QM and the
> > EPR paradox in particular; this is one area where Einstein has
> > subsequently been shown to have been wrong. But pay special attention to
> > the word 'metaphorically' above: he wasn't making any sort of
> > theological claim.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that "metaphor" is not about reality? And where
> did you obtain the idea that Einstein didn't mean what he said?
<http://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015
-11>
jillery
Oct 19, 2017, 12:30:02 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Oct 19, 2017, 12:30:02 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
While your statement above is technically correct, it's also a non
sequitur. Publishing and disseminating ideas on a massive scale,
while important, isn't a particularly relevant to the start of
"Western Society".
>> >> Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God, there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El, Adonai, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
>>
>>
>> Apparently you don't know that Islam traces its roots back to Ishmael,
>> son of Abraham and half-brother of Isaac, and that Islam was the
>> inheritor and repository of Greek learning while Western civilization
>> festered in feudalism and stupidity, and that Islam was the spark
>> which restored the light of progress back to Western Civilization.
No response, even though you replied to others about this point. So I
add to the above, the fact that Islamic traditions, ceremonies and
practices have more in common with same from Judaism than from
Christianity.
And to tie this point to the one you made above it, The fertilization
of "Western Society" from Moors in Spain and Ayyubids in The Levant
was far more seminal to "Western Society" than Gutenberg's printing
press.
>> >> > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
>> >> >
>> >> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
>>
>>
>> Even Bohr recognized that even Einstein shouldn't tell God what to do
>> with His Universe. It's almost certain Bohr would have told you the
>> same thing.
No reply here either. Apparently you don't like me telling you to
stop telling God what to do with His Universe.
>> >The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed. Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
>> >
>> >> > Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
>> >>
>> >> Nope!
>> >
>> >So decreed!
>> >
>> >Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, teleological epistemology is random, meaning
>> arbitrary, every time it assigns purpose to a natural cause.
>
>Since the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) the concept of random is used exclusively in service to Naturalism, natural causation, and natural evolution.
To the best of my knowledge, the concept and use of random didn't
change to any significant degree during that time. Cite?
>> >> > And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
>> >>
>> >> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
>> >
>> >Yep.
>
>I'm now being told I misunderstood the slash symbol; I have acknowledged.
>
>> >
>> >> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
>>
>>
>> You read incorrectly "=/" mean NOT equal, the opposite of equal.
>>
>>
>> >> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not in dispute. We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you have already said you think all effects are designed, there
>> are no coincidences.
>>
>>
>> >> > This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
>> >>
>> >> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Non-sequitur/evasion. And gravity is clearly designed. And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
>>
>>
>> Like I said above, you think everything is designed. Which moots the
>> whole question of what is Designed.
>
>You're in the same predicament with evolution.
Nope. You assert without basis a false equivalence. Neither I, nor
anybody I know of, has ever suggested everything evolved.
>But remember, Paley's stone is not designed. Creationism shown superior, again, right here. By Popperian falsification standards we can say that Paley's stone renders design falsifiable and thus scientific by said standards.
If you think stones are not Designed, then define Design sufficiently
to disqualify stone as Designed, but still qualify snowflakes and
gravity as Designed.
>> >> > > On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
>> >> >
>> >> > Ray
>> >>
>> >> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
>> >
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>> Since you admit you don't understand Evolution, that makes you even.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
>Remember, you can't invoke existence of Christian Evolutionists as saying natural selection is coherent because the only thing that binds these persons is Christ. Thus the same equates to an appeal to Christ to save you from my observation that natural selection is nonsense. No one can argue that Christ approves of a thing that was offered as replacing His Father as designer and creator of each species, that is, a thing produced in service to the assumptions of Naturalism.
Of course, natural selection does not replace Christ or His Father,
nor is it meant to, nor can it. Individual Creation is not a concept
relevant to Christianity; it has nothing to do with sin, or with
acceptance of Jesus as Savior.
sequitur. Publishing and disseminating ideas on a massive scale,
while important, isn't a particularly relevant to the start of
"Western Society".
>> >> Also, "theos" is a generic term for any god, from the ancient Greek. And "Theism" doesn't refer specifically to the Muslim, Jewish, and/or Christian God. If you want to talk specifically about the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God, there are plenty of names to choose from: Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, El, Adonai, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Allah is not Judeo-Christian; the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
>>
>>
>> Apparently you don't know that Islam traces its roots back to Ishmael,
>> son of Abraham and half-brother of Isaac, and that Islam was the
>> inheritor and repository of Greek learning while Western civilization
>> festered in feudalism and stupidity, and that Islam was the spark
>> which restored the light of progress back to Western Civilization.
add to the above, the fact that Islamic traditions, ceremonies and
practices have more in common with same from Judaism than from
Christianity.
And to tie this point to the one you made above it, The fertilization
of "Western Society" from Moors in Spain and Ayyubids in The Levant
was far more seminal to "Western Society" than Gutenberg's printing
press.
>> >> > > You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
>> >> >
>> >> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
>>
>>
>> Even Bohr recognized that even Einstein shouldn't tell God what to do
>> with His Universe. It's almost certain Bohr would have told you the
>> same thing.
stop telling God what to do with His Universe.
>> >The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed. Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
>> >
>> >> > Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
>> >>
>> >> Nope!
>> >
>> >So decreed!
>> >
>> >Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, teleological epistemology is random, meaning
>> arbitrary, every time it assigns purpose to a natural cause.
>
>Since the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) the concept of random is used exclusively in service to Naturalism, natural causation, and natural evolution.
change to any significant degree during that time. Cite?
>> >> > And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
>> >>
>> >> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
>> >
>> >Yep.
>
>I'm now being told I misunderstood the slash symbol; I have acknowledged.
>
>> >
>> >> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
>>
>>
>> You read incorrectly "=/" mean NOT equal, the opposite of equal.
>>
>>
>> >> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not in dispute. We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you have already said you think all effects are designed, there
>> are no coincidences.
>>
>>
>> >> > This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
>> >>
>> >> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Non-sequitur/evasion. And gravity is clearly designed. And you already admitted that non-random = intelligence; random = unintelligence.
>>
>>
>> Like I said above, you think everything is designed. Which moots the
>> whole question of what is Designed.
>
>You're in the same predicament with evolution.
anybody I know of, has ever suggested everything evolved.
>But remember, Paley's stone is not designed. Creationism shown superior, again, right here. By Popperian falsification standards we can say that Paley's stone renders design falsifiable and thus scientific by said standards.
to disqualify stone as Designed, but still qualify snowflakes and
gravity as Designed.
>> >> > > On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
>> >> >
>> >> > Ray
>> >>
>> >> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
>> >
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>> Since you admit you don't understand Evolution, that makes you even.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
>I understand natural selection as complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who doesn't agree doesn't understand natural selection.
Your reliance on No True Scotsman makes you sound really silly.
>Remember, you can't invoke existence of Christian Evolutionists as saying natural selection is coherent because the only thing that binds these persons is Christ. Thus the same equates to an appeal to Christ to save you from my observation that natural selection is nonsense. No one can argue that Christ approves of a thing that was offered as replacing His Father as designer and creator of each species, that is, a thing produced in service to the assumptions of Naturalism.
nor is it meant to, nor can it. Individual Creation is not a concept
relevant to Christianity; it has nothing to do with sin, or with
acceptance of Jesus as Savior.
Burkhard
Oct 19, 2017, 4:10:05 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
elementary errors? If Judaism and Christianity can be combined into
"Judeo-Christian", then on the same grounds, and to the same extend, you
can also combine Jewish, Christian and Muslim conceptions of god as
Abrahamic religion, that is religions that trace themselves back to
Abraham and the OT. This is a well established concept in comparative
religion, ever since Louis Massignonls "Les trois prières d'Abraham,
père de tous les croyants". (in Dieu Vivant. 13: 20–23), and more
recently (2014)in Carol Bakhos . The Family of Abraham: Jewish,
Christian, and Muslim Interpretations.
One can of course argue that already the Jewish and Christian conception
of God are entirely different (he former being most obviously not
triune, Jews not accepting the divinity of Christ, let alone his
identity with god), but once that is accepted as a unity as you did,
excluding Islam is simply arbitrary.
>
>>
>>> the others are and convey a particular aspect of God's nature. And it is certainly accurate to refer to the biblical God as Theos.
>>>
>> as maybe, but the word under discussion was theism, and that certainly
>> is the belief in any deity, the way the term is used in religious
>> studies and the history of ideas.
>
> In Western literature (exactly why I pegged the beginning of modern Western civilization as coinciding with invention of the printing press) it is assumed, unless stated otherwise, that Theism is referring to biblical Theism because the West has never worshiped any other God.
academic papers, this is just not the normal understanding of the term,
once again your private definition. Merriam Webster has it as belief in
the existence of a god or gods". Polytheism, Monotheism, pantheism etc
are all forms of theism, and for that reason alone your restriction to
the Christian deity makes no sense. The Routledge Companion to Theism
therefore and unsurprisingly does not restrict itself to Christianity
either, and its introductory chapter, "what is theism" looks exclusively
at genereric properties of deities.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You might be a determinist who thinks that everything is predetermined and nothing is random and there is no free will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a determinist; free-will most certainly exists. If random supports and has correspondence to the work of Mind, which concept does not? You can't have it both ways, random and non-random supporting the work of Mind.
>>>>>
>>>> Really? An intelligent agent can't roll dice? Random/non-random simply doesn't have a consistent correspondence to intelligence Ray. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even Einstein recognized that God doesn't play dice, look it up.
>>
>> But that does not mean other intelligent agents can't - we do it all the
>> time in fact.
>
> We were talking about Theism, remember? Nobody denies that humans play dice.
>
>>
>>> The remainder of your comments are weasel words, attempting to have things both ways as needed.
>>
>> Nope they are a simple statement of fact. Some random events are
>> intelligently designed (the lottery draw), others are not (the pattern
>> of raindrops on my window). That alone proves that there is no
>> systematic correspondence between them
>
> Burk includes man-made random events as supporting invisible Intelligence doing the same in nature.
matter of word meaning, they are antonyms and hence can never be
predicated of the same thing.
That is after all your argument. IF random and intelligence were
antonyms as you claim, and IF cause and effect must not have antonymic
properties (another easily falsifiable precondition of your argument),
then it would be illogical to argue that God uses random processes too.
Note, this is what you argue, not me (or any other sane person). Now
even on your own terms, your argument fails because you have in the past
exempted god explicitly from the laws of logic. But as this fortunately
enough for you does not make any sense at all, I'll ignore that
particular flaw in your argument.
What Sean and I have simply done, using everyday phenomena and natural
actors, is to show that one of your premises, to wit the universal or
major premise that intelligently designed and random are contradictory
terms, is false. If it were true, there cold not be such things as
lotteries.
>His evidence does not support his conclusion. If random supports the work of God why isn't random mutation considered evidence supporting the work of God?
inability to read with comprehension and to distinguish "consistent
with" with "lends support to". Random methods are consistent with being
used by a deity, unsurprisingly because omnipotent deities in particular
can use pretty much whatever they want. That means the observation of
random events does not falsify on its own the existence or involvement
of god, it just also does not prove or support it.
>
>>>
>> Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that
>> you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
>>>
>>>>> Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
>>>>
>>>> Nope!
>>>
>>> So decreed!
>>>
>>> Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>>
>> There are at least 70 references to "casting lots" in the Bible alone.
>> For heaven's sake, have you ever even read it?
>
> The fact that the Bible preserves and reports persons casting lots does not necessarily mean God initiated or God approved methodology. In the Book of Acts, for example, when the apostles cast lots to see who would replace Judas the lot fell on a person who is never mentioned again in the New Testament.
And from that you conclude that this expresses disapproval of casting
>>>
>> Since random and non-random are antonyms you've revealed once again that
>> you think illogically with no awareness of the fact.
>>>
>>>>> Random is a concept used exclusively in support of epistemological Naturalism.
>>>>
>>>> Nope!
>>>
>>> So decreed!
>>>
>>> Show me random in teleological epistemology?
>>
>> There are at least 70 references to "casting lots" in the Bible alone.
>> For heaven's sake, have you ever even read it?
>
> The fact that the Bible preserves and reports persons casting lots does not necessarily mean God initiated or God approved methodology. In the Book of Acts, for example, when the apostles cast lots to see who would replace Judas the lot fell on a person who is never mentioned again in the New Testament.
lots? There seems to be no scriptural support for this over
interpretation. After all the losers also participated, and are mentioned.
Anyhow, in Numbers 26:55, God explicitly orders the Israelites to cast
lots to determine the distribution of land, in 1 Chronicles 24:5 they
are used to determine the will of God, and numerous other exmples
>And no where in the New Testament will one find that God told the apostles to replace Judas by casting lots. God chose Paul to replace Judas shortly thereafter.
>
> Go ahead and choose another example if you still think that you have a point.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And as I've noted effects of organization cannot be used to infer a random cause or the final cause of unintelligent selection.
>>>>
>>>> First, random =/ non-intelligent, and non-random =/ intelligent.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Erm, that's the "non-identical" sign he is using there
>
> Didn't realize that....so I will ignore points below based on this misunderstanding of mine.
>
>>>
>>>> Second, organization alone cannot be used to infer whether the cause was intelligent or not. Snowflakes are organized, and the result of a non-intelligent cause.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong; snowflakes result from a designed process. Again, your inferences are incorrect. Non-random = intelligence, remember? You said it above.
>>
>> No, he says the opposite
>>>
>>>> A shuffled deck of cards is disorganized, and the result of an intelligent cause.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not in dispute.
>>
>> Well yes, you dispute it above. Here a random result comes from an
>> intelligent cause.
>
> How does a human activity support a Divine activity?
>
>>
>>> We know how said disorganization occurred, it was designed.
>>
>> Yes, and if you applied your own ideas consistently, that should never
>> be possible.
>
> Baffling!
getting rid of the silly idea that intelligence and randomness are
antonyms? Because that's what leads to the implication above
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> This is precisely why Darwinists promote a non-random selection process. It's a recognition that random and organization contradict----that's why non-random is needed in between. But don't get too excited and think evolutionary theorists have shielded their proposal from contradiction: non-random and unintelligent selection contradict. These contradictions explain WHY we see no evidence of RMNS in nature.
>>>>
>>>> Ray, this never gets any less silly, no matter how many times you say it. Gravity is a non-intelligent cause, and it has non-random effects... so non-random that they can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. So clearly no... there is no contradiction between non-random and non-intelligent do NOT contradict.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Non-sequitur/evasion.
>>
>> Really, you should look up the meaning of both words sometimes. His
>> comments are directly addressing yours, so not an evasion,and he gives
>> the precise reason in the form of a modus tollens (a.k.a. a
>> falsification), so also not a non sequitur.
>
> Sean's reply has nothing to do with what I said about random mutation and natural selection. Sean ignored my specifics and launched into gravity.
criticism. It has to do with the most basic form of argument, a
syllogistic inference as identified by Aristotle.
We went over this before, but you just keep getting this wrong. Here
another attempt.
Start with the famous Socrates example. It has the form
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man
3) therefore Socrates is mortal.
We call 1 and 2 the premises, 3 the conclusion. Among the premises, we
distinguish premises with a universal quantifier ("all", "no", and if
you have a modal logic, "necessarily" and "impossibly), also called the
major premise, from those about singular events or things such as 2,
which is called the minor premise.
If you want to attack such as argument, you have, unsurprisingly three
targets.
You can attack the conclusion directly, e.g. by giving good evidence
that Socrates has been around for hundreds of years without aging, that
he survived being shot at, poisoned, a giant weight falling on his head
etc etc. If this counterevidence is convincing, then we can conclude 3
is false. And from that we can also deduce that 1, 2 or both of them
must be false, but we don't know yet which.
Or you can attack the second premise, arguing Socrates is not a man.
E.g. by bringing evidence that at night, he gets plugged into the
electric charger, that he weights 500kg and that magnets stick to his
chin. In that case 2 is wrong, he really was a robot, and the argument
invalid (even though the conclusion could still be right)
In both these attacks, you talk directly about Socrates. But you don't
have to, because you can also attack the first premise. This one can be
attacked by finding a single counter example to the general rule - what
we call a falsification (another term you sometimes misuse) So in the
case at hand, we could bring in as evidence Ken, definitely a human (ex
hypothesis), but 500 years old, earning money by allowing people to
shoot, stab etc at him. Or one could bring in evidence a tribe from the
Amazon delta where people live forever, there are no cemeteries, etc etc
This then would mean premise 1 is wrong, and hence the argument invalid
(though again the conclusion might still be true of course)
At this point, a defender of the argument can NOT say: but this is
irrelevant, we've been discussing Socrates, not Ken. Or: we have not
been discussing amazon tribes, you ignore the specifics. The universal
quantifier in the first premise invites and permits the attacker to
expand the context beyond the specific issue under discussion.
You get this wrong all the time, as I sad. You make an argument, often
with the major premise not stated explicitly (what Aristotle called
"Enthymematic") and then you don't understand when people attack the
major premise with examples from other fields.
Same happened here, again.
Your argument, made fully explicit runs
1) No non-intelligent cause can have non-random effects (they
contradict, in your words)
2) mutation and selection are non-intelligent causes
3) therefore mutation and selection can't have non-random effects
Sean chose to attack premise 1, and as it is a major premise with a
universal quantifier, a single counter example, from any field, is
enough to falsify it. Taking examples from other fields or contexts is
perfectly legitimate.
snip, to be continued
Burkhard
Oct 19, 2017, 4:55:04 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:25:05 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip lots of stuff addressed elsewhere
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:25:05 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:30:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And gravity is clearly designed.
>>
>> See, that is indeed a consequence of your position. But as we have tried
>> to explain to you several times, that simply means you either become a
>> deist or an occasionalist, and in either case a theistic evolutionist,
>> once you think through the logical consequences of this position.
>
> How does designed phenomena indicate Deism but not Theism?
And I have no idea how you define occasionalism?
according to which ordinary substances cannot be efficient causes of
events. Instead, all events are caused directly by God. So there are no
unguided/undirected events, ever - which is just one position you
frequently take.
>
>>
>> There are just two ways the statement "gravity is designed" makes sense.
>> In one God initially designs gravity (and arguably the other elemental
>> forces)But to have gravity as a systematic and recurrent pattern then
>> means God does not directly cause any individual event of something
>> falling, but leaves gravity to do the job. So God is not the direct
>> cause of the rock rolling down the hill, but an indirect cause several
>> steps removed, when gravity was created. (That type of chain reasoning
>> is quite in line with Paley btw, who argues that as long as the initial
>> conditions are set by the designer, the subsequent acts of replication
>> can then be left well alone, and we'd still be entitled to call the
>> ultimate outcome as designed too.) That of course becomes a form of deism.
>
> So what's the harm to my position here?
show that your claim that gravity is designed leaves you with 2 choices
and 2 choices only - both of which ultimately lead to position you
reject, so there is a major inconsistency in your argument.
That means I first have to show the two choices, and then I show why
both inevitably lead to theistic evolution. So far, I'm merely outlining
option 1: God designed gravity at the beginning, and from then onward it
operates without direct divine oversight.
>
>>
>> Or you can go down the route of occasionalism, where God is the direct
>> cause of everything that happens, and we simply describe aspects of the
>> patterns that His behaviour with the term "gravity".
>>
>> But either way, that means because everything then is designed, "being
>> designed" becomes coextensive with "exist" and can be dropped from all
>> equations without loss of information. If asked "why did the apple fall
>> on your head", the answer is in either case simply "because of gravity"
>> not "because God created X years ago the universe, and with it gravity,
>> and then through a long chain of causal events, eventually there was an
>> apple, it's stem gave way and gravity made it fall on my head", nor
>> "God, in his aspect as gravity, made it fall on my head." But then of
>> course, "because of gravity" is also the answer an atheist would give,
>> so it becomes an issue for metaphysics, not science.
>
> Please try to summarize the above then show how your summary harms my view?
"Gravity is designed" could also mean that God directly causes every
thing that falls to fall etc. The patterns and regularities in his
actions while doing so are what we describe as gravity. Option 1 is a
non-interventionist god that creates gravity once, and then lets it run,
option 2 is a hyper-interventionist god that is involved in every causal
event.
>
>>
>> And in the next step, biology reduces to physics, ultimately. So we can
>> say in the same way that there was a mutation in the DNA of a species
>> (mutation being nothing but forces such as gravity having a particle
>> collide with DNA) etc etc.
>>
>> And in the same way we can drop God from the explanation in the case of
>> physics, we can drop him in the case of biology. Because everything is
>> designed, design stops playing any explanatory role, and becomes
>> redundant for scientific purposes.
>>
>> So you have defined yourself correct, which is always possible, but
>> which the "cost" that your position now, if applied consistently, simply
>> becomes a form of theistic evolution.
>
> Oh! I kinda get it now, you're assuming Theism doesn't entail interventions, yet the main concept that defines Theism is interventions.
"gravity is designed" can possibly make sense. The other, occasionalism,
is very much interventionist. But in both cases, the way the
intervention works out (only once at the beginning; all the time and
always) means that for scientific purposes, the intervention loses all
explanatory power.
"being designed" becomes the same as "to exist", "being caused by X"
becomes the same as "being caused by X and God". Since this holds true
for all hypothesis, both for and against a specific proposition, it can
be eliminated from the equation, it simply becomes redundant.
Just as we don't say: "The cat exists, and it pushed the vase, that
exists, from the table, that exists, so it fell on the floor, that
exists" but simply "the cat pushed the vase form the table and it fell
on the floor". That all these exist does not add any information.
Science uses concepts only if they have explanatory power, and that
means that they must be able to differentiate between proposed theories
But with gravity and the basic forces all designed, "being designed"
can't any longer differentiate between different theories (because
everything is known to be designed from the start, everybody already
agreed on this) so can be omitted without loss of information - exactly
the position a theistic evolutionist would take.
Öö Tiib
Oct 19, 2017, 4:55:04 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Jesus is most mentioned person in Quran. Great prophet of Allah.
Did many miracles. By most Islamic tradition Jesus did never
physically die. He went straight to heaven alive and will come back
one day. Allah made other person, Simon of Cyrene to appear like
Jesus and that Simon was crucified.
Burkhard
Oct 19, 2017, 5:00:03 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Nobody says everything is evolved. Only a small part of reality is, the
one of biological entities. And in this realm, not all traits are
evolved either, but could also be culturally learned, or non-heritablly
acquired from the environment.
>
> But remember, Paley's stone is not designed. Creationism shown superior, again, right here. By Popperian falsification standards we can say that Paley's stone renders design falsifiable and thus scientific by said standards.
stone is not created, or give at least a plausible account of how an
omnipotent being can create without also designing.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>> Since you admit you don't understand Evolution, that makes you even.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>
> I understand natural selection as complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who doesn't agree doesn't understand natural selection. Remember, you can't invoke existence of Christian Evolutionists as saying natural selection is coherent because the only thing that binds these persons is Christ. Thus the same equates to an appeal to Christ to save you from my observation that natural selection is nonsense. No one can argue that Christ approves of a thing that was offered as replacing His Father as designer and creator of each species, that is, a thing produced in service to the assumptions of Naturalism.
So you not on;y resume to tell god how he has to create, you also
>>
>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, you might believe that when God sends you the Gift, you choose to accept the Gift and love God in return, one of the few things we have to offer God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One is not loving or fearing God when one chooses to accept concepts to explain natural reality that are used exclusively to support the assumptions of Naturalism, so yes, I don't understand your "Theism."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>> Well, the last 6 words were right, anyway.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>> Since you admit you don't understand Evolution, that makes you even.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>
> I understand natural selection as complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who doesn't agree doesn't understand natural selection. Remember, you can't invoke existence of Christian Evolutionists as saying natural selection is coherent because the only thing that binds these persons is Christ. Thus the same equates to an appeal to Christ to save you from my observation that natural selection is nonsense. No one can argue that Christ approves of a thing that was offered as replacing His Father as designer and creator of each species, that is, a thing produced in service to the assumptions of Naturalism.
presume to tell god what he must like and not like in his followers, and
in particular making him in this case look like a petty attention seeker?
>
> Ray
>
Burkhard
Oct 19, 2017, 5:10:02 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
- science uses metaphors all the time, for no other reason that human
language is imbued by them. For a discussion with lots of examples see
e.g. Dreistadt, Roy. "An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors
in science." The Journal of Psychology 68.1 (1968): 97-116.
>and unless context says otherwise we are to understand what scientists say in a literal sense.
not of a scientific paper or book, but in an informal interview, then
published in a book about him called "Einstein and the Poet" gives you a
pretty good idea that the context here was not one of hard scientific
argumentation.
>
> Ray
>
Wolffan
Oct 19, 2017, 6:20:04 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017 Oct 18, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<b032147e-9878-47c9...@googlegroups.com>):
‘naturalism’, ‘scientific’, and ‘evidence’ are defined. given
that you like to use your private, lying, twisted, definitions of those, and
many other, words... well...
> and he argues tooth and nail against design and
> factual validity of the Bible.
Son... God made the rocks. God made the stars. The rocks and the stars say
> factual validity of the Bible.
that the universe is billions of years old, that the earth is billions of
years old, that life is billions of years old, that there has been a gradual
change in the forms life takes over those billions of years, that the gradual
change can be tracked and quantified. denying these facts is denying god’s
work and will. men wrote the bible; god wrote the rocks. if there is an
apparent contradiction between them, the rocks win.
> So I did in fact have knowledge that Wolfie
> was an Atheist, which flatly contradicts his accusation.
as noted earlier... differing from your beliefs doesn’t make me, or anyone
> was an Atheist, which flatly contradicts his accusation.
else, an atheist. You’re still lying your ass off. Again. As you always do.
You do NOT have any basis whatsoever to consider me to be an atheist. NONE.
ZERO. And it’s just that simple: you’re a total fucking fruitcake. You
make up your own definitions for terms you don’t understand, or, worse, do
understand but don’t like. Example A: to repeat, you call anyone whose
beliefs differ from yours by the merest iota (you might want to look that up,
there’s a reason why I keep using that term) an atheist. This is grossly in
error. You refuse to stop making the error, which makes your use of the term
a deliberate, malicious, lie. You’re a liat, convicted out of your own
mouth.
Eat shit and die.
>
>
> Ray
Bob Casanova
Oct 19, 2017, 11:20:03 AM10/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
And methodological naturalism is the only one which has
relevance to the *practice*, as contrasted with the theory,
of science. But point taken.
relevance to the *practice*, as contrasted with the theory,
of science. But point taken.
0 new messages