FMM: Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation.
FMM notes in the same comment:
If there in nothing about an idea that distinguishes it from it’s alternative it seems to be superfluous.
So the idea is “non designed mutations” and the alternative is “purposeful intervention”.
Give that, and given FMM has not discarded the idea of purposeful intervention there must be something that distinguishes it from non designed mutations.
What is that distinguishing factor? What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations?
And, more broadly, what is the evidence for “purposeful intervention” in any area of biology? Apart from, of course, wishful thinking.
Since fifth has put keiths on his ignore list, I’m reposting some of keiths’ posts, so that fifth can see them.
It’s obviously unintentional, because it blows your thesis out of the water.
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t help you. You thesis is about how people infer intent in this life from finite patterns in a finite universe.
You’ve scuttled your own criterion.
Um by placing one foot in front of the other —–forever
I don’t think algorithms can talk so “telling you something” would probably not be in their skill set
If the “given task” is making all the digits of Pi explicit then an algorithm is unable to accomplish it.
Yes and people infer rightly or wrongly that certain patterns they observe are potentially infinite. We usually use the symbol (…) to designate that.