FANDOM



http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/4828cd8302a35bfa/0040ffe978d4e32c?tvc=1#0040ffe978d4e32c

and

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/1007c1b1ec65cabe?tvc=1

jkh Edit

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php%3Fsection%3Dlibrary%26page%3Ddawkins_29_2&usg=AFQjCNGs2ugK7p97M-u9A27ZuTNjsJgUmw

>As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not >between them.

Where did Darwin use the term "differential survival" in OoS ?

asdfasdfasdf Edit

{{{ On Dec 2, 12:07 pm, Burkhard wrote: > > He certainly hasn't because Mr.Theory of Evolution as some sort > > abstract authority doesn't exist. You probably meant an individual > > hasn't made any claims and associated his theory with the word term > > "theory of evolution" - who is this person?

> No, I meant no statement of the form "P(God)" or "Not-P(God) can be > syntactically derived from the theory of evolution.

I would suggest that the classic example of a tautology "X or Not-X" is actually a "Logictology", somewhere between a logical validity and tautology, because the intention isn't really to deceive.

Asking unanswerable questions such as "If the tree was made by God , who made God?" is a "Questology". To answer it one would need to know everything. Imagine seeing a card-house and then concluding it wasn't designed because we don't know who designed the person that designed it and who in turn designed him in an infinite regress. It is tantamount to saying "because we don't know everything, we thus know nothing".

"Questologies" and "Rhetorical Tautologies" are used to make an argumentation narrative indisputable. }}}


asdf Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1ff4a54ecdfa3cec/daac4a62f719931b

I wrote a whole article here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology that explains who Burroughs was and what his concept and the concept Charles Kingsley had with Darwin: Absolute empire of accident. This might not be your concept but NS has no single true meaning. NS isn't a concept only you can have a concept, NS would be a semantic device to communicate your concept in 1922 John burroughs writing in The Atlantic had a specific concept: "....chance or natural selection...." He used NS to communicate his interpretation of Darwin as "chance" , this is also how Osborn understood Darwin in 1924 New York Times, read my article, I can't do it for you....

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/1ff4a54ecdfa3cec/5a95d6217732272b?tvc=1#5a95d6217732272b > You have Burroughs wrong. Motivate for what you say by citing his writings.

Burroughs, Charles Kingsley and Osborn(New york times 1922, 5Aug) interpreted Darwin's writings as being "stuff happened by chance".Osborn said "....happening by chance as Darwin had at one time supposed...". Osborn after being influenced by Waagen changed his mind from 1898 to 1922. The understanding back then with natural selection was as a proxy for "chance". I have cited the references if you differ then cite your sources and don't attempt at history revisionism. ....Citations, citations, where is your and Wikipedia's opening paragraph citation?

On Nov 23, 5:58 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > At this point, backspace clearly reveals himself as an amateur at > everything. Unwilling to do the heavy lifting. Wanting someone else > to do the hard work of scholarship. It is, *in fact*, up to you to > "figure out" how NS is defined mathematically and how it is used in > science. *You* need to do that if *you* want to make a serious > critique of the concept.

Whos concept Burroughs, Osborn or Charles Kingsley? The fact that wikipedia NS page has a section on Darwin means we are dealing with his concept, if not then why isn't there a seperate page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwins_concept_with_Natural_Selection.


osboron Edit

uses ns in 1898 but not 1924 uses ;'evolution" onlyh never said natuarl seelciton . waagen changed his mind from 1898 to 1924, kinksley and burroughs interpreted NS as "absolute empire of accident", 1918 last harvast "...chance of natural selelction...", thus when that cat walked over a keyboard in 2009 saying ".....ns is a key mechanism of evolutoin......" did the kitty read last harvast? Who wrote that sentence andwhat was the concept he or the cat had ? conjuring trick humpreys



post 220 Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_nature_of_things Add this

   * Only because the people see
   So much in land and sky
   For which they do not know the cause,
   They think Divinities are working there.
   If they could but see that
   Nothing can be created from nothing,
   Then they would advance one more step
   Toward the answer that they seek:
   Those eternal elements became
   Everything that is,
   Without interference from Gods."
   --Lucretius, " De rerum natura," written about 60 BC 

What's more; the concept was well established long before Darwin: "..............Darwin and earlier naturalists, including Titus Lucretius in 55 B.C. and Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck in 1809 emphasized that competition favored the fittest. (W.F. Loomis in "Life As It Is")....................."

why sof is not a tautology

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/fd51834a522e7c54/22bde67565a842bd?_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ffd51834a522e7c54%2F22bde67565a842bd%3Ftvc%3D1%26&tvc=1

{{{ On Nov 17, 10:10 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Empedocles:http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section12.html > "...Those animals perished immediately, for they were not fitted to > live, and only those random coalitions of elements which were fittest > to live survived, and continue to survive today...."

The battle for survival myth from Lucretius: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A12&pageseq=1 "...p.7,8 Lucretius" The mechanical shock of the atoms being in his view the all-sufficient cause of things, he combats the notion that the constitution of nature has been in any way determined by intelligent design. The inter-action of the atoms throughout infinite time rendered all manner of combinations possible. Of these the fit ones persisted, while the unfit ones disappeared. Not after sage deliberation did the atoms station themselves in their right places, nor..."

"...p.22 During the Middle Ages the doctrine of atoms had to all appearance vanished from discussion. In all probability it held its ground among sober-minded and thoughtful men, though neither the church nor the world was prepared to hear of it with tolerance. Once, in the year 1348, it received distinct expression. But retraction by compulsion immediately followed, and, thus discouraged, it slumbered till the seventeenth century, when it was revived by a contemporary and friend of Hobbes and Malmesbury, the orthodox Catholic provost of Digne, Gassendi. But before stating his relation to the Epicurean doctrine, it will be well to say a few words on the effect..."

Right up to our present day with "alleles" fighting it out amongst themselves:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/deac2432776866c6/b7fce5490e4d08d6#b7fce5490e4d08d6 William Morse wrote: "....Let me try to illustrate my thinking. The importance of a rate of increase would be if we had two alleles competing to become fixed in a population. Both of them are superior to the current predominant allele, and the one with the greatest rate of increase is the one that will become the new predominant allele. I don't think this describes any common real world scenario...."

}}}

nov 30 Edit

{{{ On Nov 19, 6:30 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 11:40 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 1:32 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2009/11/natural-selection-d... > > > > "...Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution > > > itself. Again, since natural selection can only "select" from > > > biological variations that are possible, the real question to be > > > asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. > > > How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally > > > possible in Nature?...." > > > > === rephrase === > > > "... natural selection can only "select" from biological variations > > > that are possible..." This is a disguised tautology > > > > === rephrase === > > > "...biological variations are selected if they are possible..." > > > which implies > > > "...biological variations aren't selected if they are not > > > possible..." > > > > === rephrase, strip out biological red herring === > > > "...variations are selected if they are possible..." > > > which implies > > > "...variations aren't selected if they are not possible..." > > > > I will coin a new term and call this: "truthiness-tautology", it lies > > > somewhere between a truism and tautology, its overarching formulation > > > is such that it can't be disputed. > > > "...variations are selected if they are possible..." > > > "selected" and "possible" alludes to the same fact, it repeats the > > same thing twice in the sentence. It is an outright tautology because > > the sentence can't be false. > > >http://tautology.net/tellsus > > "...A sentence is said to be a tautology if it cannot be false...." > > > "possible" and "selected" guarantees the "truthiness" of the > > sentence.

And here yet again I have to add just one more thing, sorry, will try and my this the final post. If you for example read the posts by howard, there is a corny , gummy "tautological-truthiness" to his whole argumentation scheme. Such as "....not all phenotypes are the result of genotypes...", a sentence that makes you go: mmmmh, yea well sure, whatever, guess so , I mean it can't really be wrong now can it?

This of course is where the problem lies in the whole narration surrounding the word "evolution", thousands of truisms(mutations are either neg, neutral or positive), laced with tautologies and then follows the non-sequitur: Therefore there is no God. Perhaps there is no God , but not as a logical deduction from the way Howard presents his world view. }}}


16nov Edit

{{{ Osborn in his book "from the greeks to darwin" noted that by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus and Buffon coined SoF and Spencer lifted it from them. Note that only an argument can be tautological , it is incorrect to say for example that Rogger Rabbit or SoF isn't a tautology, it depends what was the argument made the user of these symbol strings.

Osborn on vestigal structures, an argument refuted by ID

p.249

Anatomy and Embryology, as pursued by Buffon, Kant, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Treviranus, St. Hilaire, and Serres. The significance of ' degeneration ' and of * vestigial structures ' mean- while grew clear in the interpretations of Sylvius, Buffon, Kant, Goethe, and Lamarck. }}}

post 200 Edit

{{{ On Nov 17, 3:52 am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote: > FWIW I have responded to the tautology argument recently: > > http://www.box.net/shared/static/3hcbibehe7.pdf

"...Finally, I would like to make some comments about a recent furore deriving from Jerry Fodor’s attack in “Against Darwinism” (Fodor 2008a; cf. Dennett 2008; Godfrey- Smith 2008; Sober 2008b; Fodor 2008b). Here, Fodor, referring to Millikan’s (1989) example, why selection has made the frog’s reflex to catch flies with its tongue about the flies, and not just any fast moving small black objects, argues that because NS does not provide us with an account of intentionality, or “aboutness”, that the PNS cannot provide a prior story about selection “for”, as Sober calls it. Hence, he says, natural selection cannot provide an account of how selection operates..."

Nobody knows what Fodor was talking about including Fodor himself. In the article Fodor asked: "what then is the intended meaning of natural selection" and the answer was given by Osborn in "from the greeks to Darwin".

The concept that Empedocles , Matthew and Darwin had was the following: Pattrick Matthew(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/904bf06fc71497fa#) "...Those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, fall without reproducing, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind...."

Darwin defines natural selection: "...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."

http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm "..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."

Empedocles: http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section12.html "...Those animals perished immediately, for they were not fitted to live, and only those random coalitions of elements which were fittest to live survived, and continue to survive today...."

IN each case from Empedocles to Darwin it is the same banality: The favorable was preserved and those not favorable wasn't preserved and therefore my world view(whatever it might be) is the truth.

What Spencer did is go on an Ego trip and claim credit for "inventing the principle of natural selection" and so did Darwin. None of them invented anything, they merely labeled the Empedoclian fallacy "Natural selection".

}}}


post 196 Edit

Note how PZ Myers used truisms and tautologies but never said "selection", only evolution. Why does he not use natural selection? This is something I picked up in this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/94dcbb4b7acda3d0/2301c79303d4b72d#2301c79303d4b72d

It is also not clear how he explains where the first talking monkey came from and what its mother looked like. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/dang_computer.php


>The human brain exists. What an amazing insight, what brilliance, what sheer magnificent display of intellectual fidelity.

>We can see that the brain forms by natural processes. Depends who says so.

>We can see advantages to individuals in our lineage that are smarter. Here is the tautology: "....those with advantages are smarter...." or "....those that are smarter will have advantages.....". Can you think of any way to refute this?

> We can readily infer from the available evidence in anatomy, comparative biology, Who has inferred what?


asdf Edit

{{{ http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2009/11/natural-selection-doesnt-produce-evolution.html

"...Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in Nature?...."

rephrase

"... natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible..." This is a disguised tautology

rephrase

"...biological variations are selected if they are possible..." which implies "...biological variations aren't selected if they are not possible..."

rephrase, strip out biological red herring

"...variations are selected if they are possible..." which implies "...variations aren't selected if they are not possible..."

I will coin a new term and call this: "truthiness-tautology", it lies somewhere between a truism and tautology, its overarching formulation is such that it can't be disputed. }}}


195 Edit

{{{ http://www.archive.org/stream/fromgreekstodarw00osborich/fromgreekstodarw00osborich_djvu.txt

Here are key passages from osborn showing how Empedocles was the originator of the tautology: The good atom survived,the bad atom died. This tautology was arbitrarily associated with adaptations, evolution and selection. The atoms fighting it out for victory myth was replaced with the organisms themselves now strugling for survival with the good living , the bad dying as can be seen from DArwin in on p.234 "....Darwin soon saw the force of Selection as the secret of man's success in forming useful races of animals and plants; and in October, 1838, while reading Mal- thus on population, the idea of Selection in a state of Nature first occurred to him as the result of the struggle for existence, or rather for life, between different individuals and species...."

Thus when John Wilkins says : Those that were retained worked better, that is selection in biology, the word "selection" was an arbitrary choice not altering the underlying tautology. He could just as well have said ".....that is Tooth Fairy in biology....". Somebody phone Jerry Fodor and explain to him that a YEC in South-africa has finally managed to figure out the intended meaning of natural selection.

p.246

The idea of Evolution, rooted in the cosmic evo- lution and ' movement ' of Heraclitus and Aristotle, has passed to the progressive development and succession of life seen in Empedocles, Aristotle, Bruno, Descartes, Goethe, and in the more concrete mutability of species ' of Bacon, Leibnitz, Buffon, Lamarck, and St. Hilaire.


The direct transition from the inorganic to the organic is seen to have had a host of friends, nearly to the present time, including, besides all the Greeks, Lucretius, Augustine, Maillet, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Treviranus, Oken, and Chambers- Then we have seen the difficulty of ' origin ' removed one step back by the ' pre-existent germs ' of Anaxa- goras, revived by Maillet, Robinet, Diderot, and Bonnet. Again, the rudiments of the monistic idea of the psychic properties of all matter, foreshadowed by Empedocles, are seen revived by Maupertuis and Diderot. The difficulty of origin has been avoided by the assumption of primordial minute masses, which we have seen developed from the ' soft germ ' of Aristotle, to the 'vesicles' and 'filaments' of Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Oken, and finally into our primordial protoplasm.

To the inquiry : Where did life first appear ? we find the answer, ' in the sea,' given by Thales, Anaximander, and Maillet; 'between sea and land,' is the answer of Anaximenes, Diogenes, Democritus, and Oken; 'from the earth,' is the solitary reply of Lucretius. Now we are too wise to answer it. For the succession of life we have followed the ' ascend- ing scale ' of Aristotle, Bruno, Leibnitz, and others, until Buffon realized its inadequacy, and Lamarck substituted the simile of the branching tree. Of man as the summit of the scale, and still in process of becoming more perfect in his endowments, we learn from Empedocles, Aristotle, Robinet, Diderot, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and Treviranus.


p.249

Anatomy and Embryology, as pursued by Buffon, Kant, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Trevi- ranus, St. Hilaire, and Serres. The significance of ' degeneration ' and of * vestigial structures ' mean- while grew clear in the interpretations of Sylvius, Buffon, Kant, Goethe, and Lamarck.


p.245

Remarkable as this parallelism 1 is, it is not com- plete. The line of argument is the same, but the point d'appui is different. Darwin dwells upon variations in single characters, as taken hold of by Selection ; Wallace mentions variations, but dwells upon full-formed varieties, as favourably or unfavour- ably adapted. It is perfectly clear that with Darwin the struggle is so intense that the chance of sur- vival of each individual turns upon a single and even slight variation. With Wallace, Varieties are already presupposed by causes which he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, and those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive. There is really a wide gap between these two statements and applications of the theory.


p.242

Sixth edition of the Origin of Species (1880, p. 424). In the modification of species he refers as causes, successively to his own, to Lamarck's, and to Buffon's factor in the following clear language: "This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous, successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts....."

p.230

Osborn quotes Kingsley out of context: As Canon Kingsley wrote to Maurice : " Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood by the mere force of truth and fact." Osborn left out "...absolute empire of accident..." - CharlesKingsley, because Osborn didn't believe evolution happened by chance.

}}}

2 Edit

rephrase

The theory of the survival, is organisms surviving because of favorable variations.

rephrase

Those that survived had favorable variations.

What a genius Osborn was don't think?


asdf Edit

{{{ On Nov 8, 9:01 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > === rephrased === > > ".... The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop > > out.....The strongest.... win. .... The naturally weak fall by the > > wayside............." > > And then follows the non-sequitur by John Burroughs > > >Species have come to be what they are through this process.. > > The same theme is carried forth in the book "From the Greeks to > Darwin" by Henry Fairfield Osbornhttp://www.archive.org/stream/fromgreekstodarw00osborich/fromgreeksto... > > p.117 > :".... It is rather a form of the Survival of the Fittest theory > applied, not to entire organisms, > but to the particles of which it is composed. Blind and ceaseless > trials, such as those imagined by Em- pedocles, Democritus, and > Lucretius, are made by these particles, impelled by their rude > sensibility. As a sequel of many failures, finally a favourable > combination is formed, which persists until a recom- bination is > rendered necessary....." > > Now this was essentially the interpretation of Burroughs of Darwin, > but note how Osborn and Burroughs differed over the term natural > selection. > > :...Morley (not knowing of Empedocles' hypothesis) speaks of as an > anticipation of a famous modern theory, referring of course to * > Natural Selection.' This is especially valuable because it affords > another conclusive proof that the idea of the ' Survival of the > Fittest ' must > actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ. It > is contained in an imaginary dialogue upon the teleological view of > Nature > between ' Saunderson ' and the ' Professor ' : " ... all the faulty > combinations of matter disappeared, and that those individuals only > survived whose mechanism implied no important misadaptation > (contradiction), and who had the power of supporting and per- > petuating themselves....." > > === Tautological essence === > : " ... all the faulty ...disappeared, and that those that > survived.... had the power of .....perpetuating themselves....."

Burroughs and Osborn interpreted or formulated the same tautology. Burroughs was a sort of a pantheist believing that there must be some cosmic force behind all of this and thus "chance or natural selection" alone can't be responsible. Osborn would have none of this it seems but then said that evolution (he didn't say natural selection in the New York times article) doesn't happen by chance.

Osborn seemed to have suffered from some sort of "linguistic schizophrenia" , if there was no cosmic force then everything had to just happen by itself as the universe made itself "poof" - just like that . Burroughs said no there must be some "force" out there but both of them formulated the Empedocles , Aristotle tautology the same: The good live, the bad die. From this banality they each formulated different world views, different nuances. They both failed to notice the logically fallacious basis of their conclusions. IN essence they came to some sort of a conclusion - any conclusion and then in order to motivate for such a world view - any view - they formulated proposition which can't be disputed and after this each respective world view, the reader of both of them not realizing that they could both be wrong.

}}}


3727373 Edit

{{{ On Nov 7, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> === rephrased === > ".... The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop > out.....The strongest.... win. .... The naturally weak fall by the > wayside............."

And then follow the non-sequitur by John Burroughs >Species have come to be what they are through this process..

The same theme is carried forth in the book "From the Greeks to Darwin" by Henry Fairfield Osborn http://www.archive.org/stream/fromgreekstodarw00osborich/fromgreekstodarw00osborich_djvu.txt

p.117

".... It is rather a form of the Survival of the Fittest theory applied, not to entire organisms,

but to the particles of which it is composed. Blind and ceaseless trials, such as those imagined by Em- pedocles, Democritus, and Lucretius, are made by these particles, impelled by their rude sensibility. As a sequel of many failures, finally a favourable combination is formed, which persists until a recom- bination is rendered necessary....."

Now this was essentially the interpretation of Burroughs of Darwin, but note how Osborn and Burroughs differed over the term natural selection.

...Morley (not knowing of Empedocles' hypothesis) speaks of as an anticipation of a famous modern theory, referring of course to * Natural Selection.' This is especially valuable because it affords another conclusive proof that the idea of the ' Survival of the Fittest ' must

actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ. It is contained in an imaginary dialogue upon the teleological view of Nature between ' Saunderson ' and the ' Professor ' : " ... all the faulty combinations of matter disappeared, and that those individuals only survived whose mechanism implied no important misadaptation (contradiction), and who had the power of supporting and per- petuating themselves....."

Tautological essence

" ... all the faulty ...disappeared, and that those that survived.... had the power of .....perpetuating themselves....."


}}}


kljhkj Edit

{{{ http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/744f7600d38e8dec/a76d679fd00289cc?q=%22natural+selection%22+group:talk.origins+insubject:tautology#a76d679fd00289cc

Dave Woetzel wrote: > Lastly, the tautology arguments ascribed to Darwin that some > creationists attack, resemble no argument that Darwin made in "The > Origin of Species." Generally I assume that anyone making the > anti-Darwin tautology argument has not read the book.

I don't necessarily disagree. There is multiplied problems with the theory of natural selection--depending on how it is formulated. Survival of the fittest, as it is popularly presented, is tautologous. But the way that natural selection was formulated by Darwin is generally metaphysical (and still untestable).

"Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relation to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by offspring." (Darwin, 1859, p. 115)

The challenge facing creationists has been well-articulated by ReMine. Pinning down natural selection is like trying to pin down a pea in the shell game at the carnival. Depending on the theorist, one encounters the *lame formulation*, the *special definition*, the *tautology* or the *metaphysical formulation*. By shifting the pea around, evolutionists can have all the good qualities one could want in science: empirical, measurable, explanatory, general, testable, non-tautologous, and factual.

My comments: This post was from feb27.2000, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics entry on a green light was only around 2008. The key insight missing the last 150 years in these endless debates is that no single term has a single true meaning. It all depends on who says natural selection, such as the endless revisions to wikipedia natural selection article. We don't know who changed the opening paragraph from 2007-2008 to something different in 2009 , but just as tautologies . This does't happen in any other branch of science, nobody makes up their pet definitions of newtons inverse square law for example.

The 2007-2008 revision I had ball with, it so clearly gave what darwin wrote: Those that were favorable were preserved and those preserved were favorable, which is an outright tautology, it says the same thing twice, indisputable. }}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Nov 5, 6:51 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > What did he describe?

> He described how natural selection worked. When conditions favor > certain traits, those organisms are more likely to reproduce. To the > degree that those traits are inherited, they spread rapidly through > the gene pool.

"favor"and "more likely" says the same thing twice, they allude to the same fact.


> till it gets into the kernel. Now what special difficulty would there > be in natural selection preserving each slight variation of beak, > better and better adapted to break open seeds,

rephrase

Now what special difficulty would there be in Ninja Turtles preserving each slight variation of beak, better and better adapted.

rephrase

Ninja Turtles preserves the better adapted variations of beak.

finally strip out getting ninja'd

The better adapted variations are preserved.

"better adapted" and "preserved" says the same thing twice, it is a tautology, making Darwin a genius, irrefutable, indisputable.


> > You mean how a palindromic sequence arose in the genome without it > > being in somebodies mind first? > > What *are you talking about?

berlinski black mischief, Creating a large Palindrome is never by chance, it was made by an algorithm or mind.

}}}


post 2 Edit

{{{ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

rephrase

The process by which.... traits that make it more likely for an organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

rephrase

The ... traits that make it more likely for an organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

rephrase

The ... traits that .....enables .... reproduction become more common in a population................ It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

Indisputable proposition

The traits that enables reproduction, become more common.


"Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the same fact: It says the same thing twice. The "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it possibly be incorrect. We are told that certain traits became more common. But why did they become more common?

Ans: Because the traits were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they wouldn't have become more common now would they? It is the same tautological essence form OoS where Darwin explained that the dinosaurs went extinct because they were "less improved"- which is an irrefutable proposition.

Over at http://creationmuseum.org/ AIG is adding to the confusio by not comprehending that this tautology was ad-hocly associated with "natural means of selection" from PatrickMatthews, an arbitrary choice of words. Darwin, Aristotle, Epicurus, EmpeDocles , JamesHutton and Patrick Matthews tautology, if labeled Ninja Turtles wouldn't make a turtle putting on a ninja suite a tautology. No sentence or term has a single true meaning. Only an argument containing a motive from some individual can be a tautology, such an argument might contain the term NaturalSelection, but if the person doesn't define what he means with NS his argument isn't even wrong.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use have removed the section that "natural selection is a tautology" shouldn't be used. I agree because getting naturaled has nothing to do with Aristotle's explanation of everything past, present and future. But then again it isn't defined what Ken Ham means with natural selection.




}}}


pend Edit

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/15/eyes_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll.php "....The more scientists study the eye, the more they recognize that Darwin was right. This is not to say that they know everything about how the eye evolved...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#History_of_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random

shaftesbury Edit

'...How far Religion necessarily implies Virtue; and whether it be a true Saying, That it is impossible for an Atheist to be virtuous, or share any real degree of Honesty, or Merit.....” Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, vol. 2 [1737] http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=812&layout=html

PENDING Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection "....In evolutionary biology, group selection refers to the idea that alleles can become fixed or spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups, regardless of the alleles' effect on the fitness of individuals within that group....."

The words 'evolutionary' , selection, alleles and fitness are arbitrary irrelevant ornamentation around the tautological core in order to disguise the mythological premise of Gods slaying see-monsters with the battle now between organisms themselves, the strong allele outwitting the weak allele. Let us replace these weasel words to expose the tautology:

rephrase1 Edit

"....In the land of OZ , the God Zeus refers to the idea that rabbits can become fixed or spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups, regardless of the rabbit's effect on the fitness of individuals within that group....."

rephrase2 Edit

"....In the land of OZ , the God Zeus refers to the idea that rabbits spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups of rabbits, regardless of the rabbit's effect on the suitability (Spencer used suitable for fitness) of individuals within that group....."


rephrase3 Edit

"...........They spread because of the benefits they bestow............." The fact that the rabbits spread implies that they are "suitable" the word Spencer used for "fitness", spread functions as a disguised tautology and to make this clear suitable is added in next reprase.

rephrase4 Edit

"....Suitable rabbits spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups of rabbits...." "suitable" and "benefits" alludes to the same fact, the proposition is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed.

rephrase4 Edit

"...........The suitable spread because of the benefits they bestow............." "suitable" and "benefits" alludes to the same fact, the proposition is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed.

rephrase5 Edit

"....The suitable are beneficial. ..."

Can you think of anyway to refute this, any test that could falsify it? Those that are suitable implies that they will be beneficial and those that are beneficial implies they are suitable - how could be any other way. This tautological core is then fleshed out with semantic trivia such as selection, allele, strong selection, weak selection, group selection, evolution etc.




asdf Edit

{{{ This article on tautologies http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm is causing more confusion because the author didn't bring in the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics (probably didn't know about it) and missed key tautological passages in OoS.

Tdtone wrote: "...Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) must be recognized for the true character of its mechanism: it is a completely random, infinitely changing, "filtering/culture media" process where the end result is the genome that survives (or prospers). Just as a filter/ culture media in a laboratory does not create anything, so it is with Darwin's filter/culture, natural selection..."

I would beg to differ, "natural selection" was the grammatical gargoyle Darwin lifted from Patrick Matthews to label his concept which he only defined once in the entire book: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Darwin_defined_natural_selection_only_once "...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate ...."

   * How did Darwin measure the variations usefulness other than noting they were preserved?
   * How did Darwin measure the variations preservability other than noting they were useful? 

Note that in my question I ignored the weasel words: natural, selection, fittest, they are just ornamentation around the tautological core. Replace them with Roger, Rabbit and Turtle to more clearly see that the tautology remains: The useful variations were preserved. This has got nothing to do with getting naturaled.

The author TdTone then goes on to say: "...Thus, selection by nature of one of a (varied) species (for survival) is the explanation for evolution of that species...."

He failed to notice the tautology, meaning this specific sentence and his article is adding to the confusion about what it means to say the same thing twice , or imply the same thing twice using different words in order to convince a hearer of ones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view. }}}

post 66 Edit

{{{ Notice the similarity between what James Hutton wrote in 1794 and what Aristotle wrote:

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JamesHutton http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-original-theory-of-evolution-were-it-not-for-the-farmer-who-came-up-with-it-60-years-before-darwin-583519.html http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/aefd3884630a72bb# "....This wisdom of nature, in the seminal variation of organised bodies, is now the object of our contemplation, with a view to see that the acknowledged variation, however small a thing in general it may appear, is truly calculated for the preservation of things, in all that perfection with which they had been, in the bounty of nature, first designed. Now, this will be evident, when we consider, that if an organised body is not in the situation and circumstances best adapted to its sustenance and propagation, then, in conceiving an indefinite variety among the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that ... those which depart most from the best adapted constitution, will be most liable to perish, while ... those organised bodies, which most approach to the best constitution for the present circumstances, will be best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and multiplying the individuals of their race...."

"....(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2): :OoS:".............So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish.........."

Darwin it seems plagiarized James Hutton, something which I believe Gould picked up in his last book "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" before he died.

In any case as I posted on http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JamesHutton, the Hutton passage reduces to: "....those adapted are adapted, those not adapted are not adapted..." which is the same thing Aristotle's passage reduces to.

}}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Oct 20, 12:27 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 19, 8:19 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 19, 10:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it > > > > there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a > > > > mountain then non-volitional. > > > > For the millionth time(on both counts) > > > 1) Although one case involves volition and the other does not, that > > > does not mean there is a second meaning of the word 'selection'. They > > > are simply two different scenarios involving selection, only one of > > > which involves volition. That is not the same as saying the word > > > 'selection' itself implies volition. > > > Words themselves can't imply anything > > Rubbish, and an evasion also. > > Each time somebody here uses the phrase 'natural selection', your > quibble is that ' "selection" implies intent'. > > It does not. In whatever respect you say " 'selection' implies intent > ", you are wrong. > > --Iain }}} You are misstating me. I said that for last 5850 years "selectus" was used in 99% of cases to indicate somebody or something(pantheist rocks) making a decision. With the advent of pragmatics the last 30 years it became clear that any word can be used in either volition, non-volition sense. The deceit is that the last 150 years "selection" was used but nobody knew what was meant by this. The confusion is so severe that the YEC apologetics movement went around attacking evolution , but they were like a boxer hitting in the air, with the deceitful university professors laughing at them because they never defined what they meant with "evolution" , selection etc : What was the mechanism. I am not making the same mistake, by asking you to spell out what you mean: Did anybody have intent with your usage of selection, if not then why are using the word? Rather say what you mean: What will be, will be and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human.

You certainly can use "selection" in the non-volition sense but this would be just as strange as saying " I hate you my love" to your wife , where she now has to decode your pragmatics that you actually mean you love her. I would indicate a form of mental illness, if not madness.


61 Edit

On Oct 20, 11:58 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?

> > > No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for > > > "will volition". > > > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?

> I meant what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

But only you know what you meant. My usage of directed, volition, selected, decision,will and goal are all synonymous. Perhaps in your language universe they are not, this is where the problem lies, something AIG and ICR fails to understand. They are doing more damage to the mental health of the world then the atheists. Paul had the least problems with the non-believers, it was always those claiming to be on God's side causing the damage.

You can't be born-again or give your heart to God, or pray if you are insane. God expects you be in your sane mind, something which society is rapidly losing.

62 Edit

{{{On Oct 21, 5:47 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote: > >> No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for > >> "will volition". > > > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition? > > Correct, directed is not a synonym for volition. > > A creek bed directs water. > > Water in a creek does not have volition, nor does the creek bed.

True because directed can be used in both volitional and non-volitional sense depending on the context: patterns or designs. The creek had no intent, but that depends whether you are a pantheist or not. It all depends, some actually believe the creek would be "alive" , from just the sentence alone it isn't possible whether directed was used in the pattern or design sense. We must be told who said so.

Now who said: A creek bed directs water? Who said: John directed the person towards his goal?

> You have a problem with modern hydrology as well as evolution, right? Until you define evolution you are not even wrong. }}}

63 Edit

{{{ On Oct 20, 10:21 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 7:46 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 20, 4:07 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition > > No.

Do you mean that "non-random" can't be used to communicate a volitional intent by a user? Any word can be used to communicate any intent, any concept. But then again if you ultimately believe your thoughts are just banging atoms then ultimately nothing you say, hear or do could have any intent. Thus your religious beliefs can't be separated from what you say, something the ID crowd , many Xtians actually do over at uncommondescent.com denying their faith refusing the take the consequences: Loose your job , be destitute, cast out , the same the early Xtians had to go through. Thus the atheists are holding them in contempt because they refuse to die like the early Xtians did, what then is their faith really worth. If it isn't worth dying for then why are they bothering the atheists with it, lying about their intentions etc.... }}}

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.