FANDOM


Automated selection Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3c6713a1bb23d97e#

Randomness and automated selection Edit

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3c6713a1bb23d97e/abe4fd5d2244b463?#abe4fd5d2244b463 see post 91

=== Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

"...Sober [1984:99] illustrates the process in this way: imagine a
child's toy that has numbers of three different size balls in a
container, with two internal layers that have increasingly smaller
holes in them. Shaking the toy (a randomising process) increases the
likelihood that the smaller balls will pass through the first filter,
and that the smallest balls through the second. The smallest balls
are, in effect, the most "fit" (or make the best fit) and make it
through to the bottom. There has been a selection, or sorting, process
which results in the smallest balls making it to the bottom...."

Sober confused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness with
automated selection. Lets mix the different size balls in a pot,
then we select out the smaller balls by hand, this is a directed, non-
random filtering process by a human.

(Aristotelians would write directed while theists directed as per
Naming Conventions. Some believe that "novel accidents" are
continually taking place in trillions of possible parallel universes
including the small balls being selected3 out - it was just a novel
accident in parallel universe 154trillion).

In order to automate the process the person designs a toy that will
allow specific size balls to pass through the layers and be selected2
out. The toy didn't make2 itself, it was designed with a purpose2 -
automating the filtering2 process.

Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample - (probability
sampling) automated design process.


SoF has no meaning Edit

{{{ On Jul 30, 10:39 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 10:55 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > > backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 28, 12:16 pm, Burkhard wrote: > > > > > On 28 July, 09:28, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Every scientist requires a fundamental dynamic, from which > > > > > > quantitative predictions can be made and the theory extended. And > > > > > > measurement method(s) by which those predictions may be tested. This > > > > > > duo is the very guts of scientific method. The mathematics foundation > > > > > > is NOT an option ... better to say that verbal expression of > > > > > > foundation concepts "external" > > > > > > to the science. Definitions come through the predictive equations. > > > > > > It's a stricture on ANY discipline wishing to call itself a science. > > > > > > > Scientific terms are defined in-terms-of the equations by which > > > > > > quantitative effects may be derived from asserted causes such as > > > > > > gravity. "Gravity" is defined by an equation that tells us how-to > > > > > > calculate a quantitative value. The term "gravity" is so defined as to > > > > > > produce quantitative predictions. These predictions may be tested by > > > > > > measurement, in this case of position as a function of angle or time. > > > > > > > Darwin, after quoting Aristotle "...those constituted weren't > > > > > > perishable, while those not constituted were perishable...." correctly > > > > > > identified this: ".... we can see here the principle of natural > > > > > > selection shadowed forth....". But then elsewhere Darwin wrote "...by > > > > > > the process of natural selection...." Aristotle formulated an > > > > > > implicitly assumed logical validity, stating it in writing, making it > > > > > > a truism from which any conclusion becomes a non-sequitur. There is a > > > > > > difference between a process and a principle. (A or not-A), what > > > > > > happens, happens and 7=7 are principles - logical validity's. Darwin > > > > > > went from principle to process in has narratives with NS, which is > > > > > > like going from d/dx to integration with no logical justification. > > > > > > d/dx is to integration what patterns are to designs and cause is to > > > > > > effect. > > > > > > > Materialists confuse processes with principles, patterns with design > > > > > > and cause with effect. To materialists all design is but the > > > > > > appearance of design, all lies are truth, all cause are effect. > > > > > > Natural selection is but the coda to ingrain this type in thinking > > > > > > inversion. Scientologists and Falun Gong members also suffer from > > > > > > antonymic thinking inversion verbalized with coda such as Xeno and > > > > > > Thetans. > > > > > > > Materialistic antonymic thinking is a vast US and EU funded cult. The > > > > > > Biological sciences and the term natural selection is the means of > > > > > > perpetuating this type of inverse thinking where cause is subset of > > > > > > effect and truth subset of lies, intelligence subset of stupidity. It > > > > > > has ruined our society's ability to differentiate between cause and > > > > > > effect and is dumbing down's people critical thinking skills. Onhttp:/ > /www > > > > .myfxbook.com, > > > http://www.forexfactory.comandhttp://www.stocktwits.com/stephanusRunder > > > alias stephanusR I wrote a > > > > > > > series of posts explaining how people are seeing patterns in the forex > > > > > > market where there are no patterns. Exposing the data-snooping fraud > > > > > > by brokers and peddlers of EA automated forex trading applications: I > > > > > > discerned patterns from designs. > > > > > > > Dawkins says that highly complex biological structures has only the > > > > > > appearance of Design. Should we not therefore infer that the very > > > > > > sentence itself has only the appearance of design? > > > > > > > Ken Miller says that "...NS is blind..." to which I asked why isn't NS > > > > > > then also stupid? In reply we were told that NS is a metaphor. > > > > > > Engineers don't use metaphors when building robots > > > > > > Yeah, I suppose, the partitions on your harddrive are really little > > > > > physical walls with spikes on it, and your computer has a physical > > > > > bin, not a metaphorical one, and cloud computing only works when the > > > > > sky is overcast. > > > > > > Or as Kent Beck in "Extreme Programming Explained" says: " a system > > > > > metaphor is > > > > > "a story that everyone - customers, programmers, and managers - can > > > > > tell about how the system works." (p. 179.) > > > > > > see also Carew, Anna L.; Mitchell, Cynthia A: .Metaphors Used by > Some > > > > > Engineering Academics in Australia. Environmental Education Research, > > > > > v12 n2 p217-231 Apr 2006 > > > > > > Richard D. Johnson-Sheehan: The Emergence of a Root Metaphor in Modern > > > > > Physics: Max Planck's 'Quantum' Metaphor. Journal of Technical Writing > > > > > and Communication Volume 27, Number 2 / 1997 > > > > > > >but use language in > > > > > > clear cause effect, design pattern dichotomy sense. Which is why > > > > > > Evolutionary biologists aren't expected to actually build us a mouse > > > > > > from scratch, to derive its control algorithms from first principles, > > > > > > their language is metaphorical illusions that only have the appearance > > > > > > of design. > > > > > 27 July 2010 there appeared an article in "Die Beeld" and Afrikaans > > > > newspaper where the Dutch Reformed minister said that he doesn't > > > > believe his forefather swinged from his tail in the trees 10mil years > > > > ago. > > > > He is quite right about this. > > > > > In reply the Evotionist professor wrote: Evolution is a matter of > > > > cause and effect. > > > > And he is quite wrong. > > > Evolution is a statistical theory, > > > not one that proceeds by cause and efect, > > > > Jan > > > What is this statistical theory exactly? > > It is a misunderstanding that some survive > (leave progeny) > because they are fitter than the others. > > The effects of fitness (whatever that may be) > are tiny compared to all other (mostly random) factors. > Yet, in the very long run, over many generations > they come to dominate, > because they work systematically in one direction. > > 'Survival of the fittest' > should be understood in the sense of long term averages, > > Jan

Which depends who says SoF, one can only only understand ideas. Map copper to Survival, and Vanadium to Fitness. It makes no sense to say that copper and vanadium side by side should be understood in the sense of long term averages. These metals are objects, they only represent themselves , they have no meaning. SoF is an object side by side that like copper and vanadium has no meaning, but it can represent a meaning between signal sender/receiver.

What meaning by whom is being represented with the object SoF? Who is the sender to me receiver, how must I decode the message that the object SoF represents. In other words Lodder you are not even wrong unless you tell me who says SoF. That person can't be yourself as per wikipedia NOR. }}}

Natural selection has no meaning Edit

rs1 - rs2 


{{{ On Jul 30, 5:45 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 4:18 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 29, 10:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > > No word implies anything since no word like accumulation, natural or > > selection has an actual meaning, they can only represent an idea in > > the pattern,design,cause,effect sense. > > > 1) The men accumulated rocks - design > > 2) Over eons the action of the waves accumulated rocks on the beach - > > design. > > Both are "design"? So what would a "pattern" be? Or can't you even > keep your own ideas straight?

Made a type 1) is design 2) is pattern.

> > Even though (2) has "action" and "accumulated" , both words were used > > in the pattern sense. > Now both are "patterns"? Wow. You sure know how to dissemble by > spouting meaningless blurtings.

Slip of the pen actually 1) is design, 2) is pattern. It should have been obvious I made a typo. > >Patterns and designs, cause and effect, antonym > > and synonym can be the only ideas represented. The words "action", > > "acts", "natural -> preferential", "artificial -> contemplated", > > selection, decision, design, pattern have no meaning. > So you are an intellectual nihilist where nothing has any meaning?

A Falun Gong, Scientologist, Materialist and YEC ideas have meaning, they all use the same symbols but project different meanings, the words themselves have no meaning.

> And you keep talking about the words representing ideas, yet you say > that the ideas I use to describe what these words mean to normal > people are not ideas.

Tom Cruise thinks he is normal. > > My ideas could be wrong but "natural selection" could never be > > "wrong" or "right" in the same way if we place copper and vanadium > > side by side does it make sense to say the copper, vanadium > > combination is wrong or correct. > On this I agree. NS just is, just like force just is, just like > copper just is, just like the laws of thermodynamics just are. > "Wrong" or "right" are moral value judgements.

NS the symbol or the Aristotle idea Darwin represented with the symbol just is? > > Tarski showed with his semantic theorem of truth that "truth" or > > "empirical reality" can't be derived from base axioms, it leads to a > > contradiction. What then is the Truth or empirical reality, if all > > attempts at defining it using axiomatic logic leads to a > > contradiction. > > > > "Natural", as used in natural > > > selection, means "occurring in the absence of human intervention". > > It doesn't mean this, but it could represent such an idea > What is 'meaning' but the 'representation of an idea'? When I give a > word 'meaning', I am, in fact, describing the idea that I mean it to > represent.

What idea ? Darwin had an idea , you have an idea, to which idea is being referred to.

> When I say that the word "natural", as used in natural > selection, means "occurring in the absence of human intervention", I > am saying that when I use the word "natural" in that context it is > representing the idea of something "occurring in the absence of human > intervention". Are you so stupid that you do not understand that > saying that something "means" x is, in fact, presenting the idea it > represents? But, of course, you could then take the nihilists way out > by saying that all words are meaningless, including these words. In > which case, communication becomes impossible. > > in the > > pattern sense depending on the user wield the tool natural . They > > symbol "natural" like a hammer, you can do anything you want with it. > And I am telling you that, in the phrase 'natural selection', the > community of people who understand biology mean the word 'natural' to > mean or represent the idea of "occurring in the absence of human > intervention" and not the idea of "preferential".

Who are these people? Why are they using Darwin's term from a time era where genes weren't known. It is like imagine we use phlogiston theory in GR. One could do that, one could say ATM but actually mean Ethernet, but now nobody knows to which idea is being referred to.

}}}

Logical validities isn't a process Edit

On Jul 21, 12:20 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> NS is a process, a *defined* process, not a "thing".

Wikipedia tells us "..... NS is the process by which things that are favorable become more common...." What process?

"... those favorable become more common..." isn't a process but a generalized implicitly assumed logical validity. By explicitly stating it , it became a truism from which any conclusion is a non-sequitur. Logical validity's aren't processes.

DARWIN SAID THE PRINCIPELE OF NS, wikipeidia says PROCESS. A process isn't a principle, but since words have have no menaing the author cold indeed have menat principel . thus WHO SAY NS ? What is the intended meanig.? Only humans can have intent, thus whcih human wiht what intent?

WIKIPEDIA LABELED A LOGICAL VALIDITY A PROCESS. It is no more a process than "what happens, happens" and 7=7 is a process.

It depends though who wrote that, because process the symbol like circle the symbol has no meaning. Usually we mean a "cause-effect" process like water causing soil erosion. Yes, we read the word "process" but words have no meaning,only the idea with the word "process" has meaning: Who wrote that sentence? Nobody of course, because it contains a generalized logical validity applicable in many contexts. In other words the opening paragraph is far worse than being wrong: Unless we are told who wrote that it isn't even wrong.

Asking the question who wrote ".... those favorable became more common ..." is like asking wrote ".... what happens, happens...." - nobody wrote that. They are like '7=7' axioms, validity's given to us by fiat, neither refutable nor verifiable.

The term NS thus was associated with a generalized logical validity allowing the term NS to be used in descriptive schemas from cosmology, physics, biology etc. Because all fields of scientific study, literature and art pivots on axioms or logical validity's. Natural selection was used a proxy for such logical validity's. But logical validity's aren't processes. Because NS has no meaning one was therefore allowed to say that ".... favorable becomes more common ...." is a natural selection. All this meant was that the symbol 'NS' was a proxy for an logical validity. Just like Circle doesn't mean round, so NS doesn't mean anything.

with the term natural selection we find ourselves in "semantic never-never land" because words have no meaning. IF you pick up a paper with only "what happens, happens" written on you wouldn't know whether it was a logical validity stated for its pedagogical usage or validity explicitly stated making the idea behind it a truism.

Wikipedia tells us that "...Natural selection is the process...." but wikipedia doesn't tell us who say so. You see somebody has to say so. My usage of "natural artificial selection" in the "preferential forced decision" sense had meaning because I StephanusR said so, thus making it so. Saying so makes it so, if nobody says so then there is no meaning.

Again I ask who says: Natural selection is the process - who is this person?

380 Edit

{{{ http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/0374288798/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279897165&sr=1-1-spell

"..The authors of this scattershot treatise believe in evolution, but think that the Darwinian model of adaptationism—that random genetic mutations, filtered by natural selection, produce traits that enhance fitness for a particular biological niche—is fatally flawed..."

In the opening post and other similar posts on automated selection I used "filtering" in the design sense, showing how filtering can be used in the pattern or design sense.

Did the review of Fodor's book above from amazon used "filtered" in the pattern or design sense or has Fodor would put it in the "selection-for" or "selection-about" sense.

}}}

Full circle Edit

{{{ On Jul 21, 12:20 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace > <stephan...@gmail.com>: > > >http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho14.htm#Tautology > > >"...Johnson knows that the trick is in the definition: "But although > >natural selection can be formulated as a tautology, it can also be > >formulated in other ways that are not so easily dismissed" (p23, > >italics mine). So what's the point of discussing the tautology?...." > >Johnson is wrong, you can't formulate any symbol as meaning anything. > > It's certainly obvious from your posts that *you* have no > ability to do so. But see below: > > >What for exmample does "square circles" mean? Does it mean a circle > >inside of a square , square inside a circle or a circle that has a > >nearly a square shape .... it would depend who says square circle. > > How about just "circle"? Or "square"? These both have > definite meanings, thus refuting your claim using your own > examples.

When a person says ".... the idea came full circle ...." show me where the round shape is.

>0 Formulating an ambiguous term doesn't prove (or > even indicate) that all terms are ambiguous; it indicates > only that the formulator of such terms who tries to use them > as evidence in the general case of all terms is either an > idiot or a troll. I have my suspicion which is the case > here, but maybe you could enlighten the group. > > >You can though formulate tautological ideas and represent them with NS > >or you could formulate other ideas like "preferential selection" that > >had nothing to do with tautologies as I used it in the relevant > >context. NS isn't some sort of entity that can lay down its rules, it > >is like a hammer a piece of metal that can be used for whatever the > >user intends it. > > NS is a process, a *defined* process, not a "thing".

Wikipedia tells us "..... NS is the process by which things become common...." What process? What is the actual process that infuses the flight algorithm into the Eagle egg, when we know that algorithms are stored in computers. Which came first the Kalman filtering algorithm or the neural network bird brain computer? How would this yet to be defined process labeled NS explain it.

}}}

Bearing of information Edit

{{{ On Jul 18, 6:27 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 18, 4:16 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Jul 15, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> [snip]

> > The abstract authority Mr.Science doesn't exist hence can't invoke > > anything, only we can invoke things in terms of our take on the > > pattern design dichotomy.

> Except you use the terms "pattern" and "design" without telling us > what you mean by them; without defining their meaning to you. In > particular, you have variously claimed that only random patterns are > "patterns", that everything is "design" but we call those "designs" > for which we have no evidence of a designer "patterns", that some > things produced by a designer are "patterns" and other things are > "designs", and that "design" and "pattern" are dichotomous terms. You > are so confused about what you mean that you engage in incoherent > babbling and referring me to long diatribes that do not themselves > answer the question of what you mean by "design" and "pattern".

> > Truisms are the explicit stating of implicitly assumed logical > > validity's. Logical validity's like "what happens, happens" , "A or > > not-A" and 7=7 can't be verified but neither refuted. A rhetorical > > tautology is a truism, masquerading as a logical validity from which a > > conclusion is drawn that doesn't follow logically(non-sequitur). The > > conclusion might be correct, but not as a result of logical deduction > > from the argumentation schema employed. > > Jerry Fodor has stated that > > (paraphrasing) ".... natural selection is collection of anecdotes and > > truisms....." More accurately one would say a collection of truisms > > from which conclusions are inferred that are non-sequiturs. From my > > usage of "natural selection" as a proxy for "preferential selection" > > in the design sense(man eating cake over toffee) we deduce that > > "natural selection" has no meaning. > Your usage of "natural selection" is not what biologists mean by NS

In the following analogy "natural artificial selection" will be used in such a way that a clear cut design concept is represented. The previous example the man made a (natural->Preferential) selection for cake over toffee. He is now presented with making a forced(artificial) choice between a paw-paw and a banana. He likes paw-paw more than bananas, but would rather not eat anything as he isn't hungry. Since he must make a choice between either bananas or toffee his overaching decision will be forced or "artificial". Within this decision he will make a "preferential decision" for paw=paw over bananas. Thus he makes a "preferential forced selection" for paw or a "natural artificial selection".

> Specifically, in Darwin's terminology, what you call NS would be what > he called "artificial selection". IOW, in order to have any kind of > argument, you have to rely on lies and dishonesty and distorted > definitions and meaning.

I can't distort definitions, since "natural selection" isn't define as meaning anything, it has no meaning. Only the various ideas represented with in the patter or design sense has meaning.

> Rather than all your distorted, irrelevant > analogies, I gave you a description of what NS means in biology and > how it actually is determined.

Where did you determine how information is transmitted from Eagle-

>jelly->Eagle?

A computer bears information, it doesn't constitute information because information is neither matter nor energy. Matter and energy can symbolically represent information only. When transmitting information from cpu to cpu ,the bearing of the information takes place in a physical dimension and is transmitted down a physical line. In order for this to happen one needs two fully functioning computers: CPU1 -> fiber -> CPU2.

IN the mapping of Eagle1->jelly->Eagle2 we don't have a fully functioning neural network or computer yet when going from Eagle1 to Eagle2 via jelly. Information wise we have a type of chicken and egg problem. This suggest that the actual information isn't physically transmitted but is infused from a separate unseen dimension. The IPC algorithm is held somewhere in "reserve" and is only infused once the neural network computer of the chicken brain is formed. Once formed such a physical computer bears the IPC information only it doesn't constitute the actual algorithm itself.

Having a fully formed clucking chicken pivoting on two legs no more constitutes an IPC algorithm itself then having a fully formed Intel computer. The computer must not be confused with the IPC algorithm, the brain of the chicken must not be confused with the IPC algorithm itself. Because the algorithm has no physical location. }}}

379 Edit

{{{ http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho14.htm#Tautology

"...Johnson knows that the trick is in the definition: "But although natural selection can be formulated as a tautology, it can also be formulated in other ways that are not so easily dismissed" (p23, italics mine). So what's the point of discussing the tautology?...."

Johnson is wrong, you can't formulate any symbol as meaning anything. What for exmample does "square circles" mean? Does it mean a circle inside of a square , square inside a circle or a circle that has a nearly a square shape .... it would depend who says square circle.

You can though formulate tautological ideas and represent them with NS or you could formulate other ideas like "preferential selection" that had nothing to do with tautologies as I used it in the relevant context. NS isn't some sort of entity that can lay down its rules, it is like a hammer a piece of metal that can be used for whatever the user intends it. }}}

377 Edit

{{{ On Jul 20, 12:51 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 4:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 10:48 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 1:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 7:39 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 19, 12:13 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 4:45 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > In my example with "Preferential selection"(natural selection) and > > > > > > "preferential forced selection" (natural artificial selection), I used > > > > > > arbitrary terms and words to convey a highly specific idea in the > > > > > > design sense. The pattern / design distinction was crystal clear to > > > > > > everybody. Either the universe made itself or it was made. > > > > > > Both of those terms are "design" by my understanding of your use of > > > > > the word because both are due to the actions of a knowable designer. > > > > > Artificial, natural, preferential don't mean design or pattern, they > > > > can be used to represent a pattern or design concept. > > > > > 1) The tornado struck four times , > > > > Where? Completely flat land? > > > > > making a preferential selection for > > > > the houses on the left. > > > > Four examples (assuming the other conditions are the same) is probably > > > going to be considered insufficient to determine "preference" as > > > opposed to "chance" even if all four instances wound up destroying the > > > house on the left. The probability that the tornado would hit all > > > four houses on one side by chance alone is 1/8 (for specifically the > > > left side it is 1/16). Compared to 6/16 that would be 2 left:2 right > > > and 3/16 that would be 3 lefts and a right (as well as another 3/16 > > > that would be 3 rights and a left). > > > > > In this instance the term "preferential selection" was used in the > > > > pattern sense. > > > Based on what? Why is this in the "pattern" sense rather than in the > > > "design" sense like when you used the same phrase to apply to a human > > > making a choice he preferred? And would it still be a "pattern" if > > > the tornado had struck the house on the left twice and the one on the > > > right twice? Would a random pattern be a "design" if done by a > > > tornado? By a human unconsciously without intent? By a human > > > consciously with intent? > > > And why are "pattern" and "design" a dichotomy rather than one being a subset of the other? > > > If all designs are subset of pattern, then what you just wrote is a > > pattern, meaning we can't believe a word you say. > > Actually, anything that *I* write must be both a "pattern" *and* the > subset of pattern called "design" (in the same way that, because > "human" is a subset of "mammal", any human is also a mammal). It is > "design" because I am a conscious agent and what I wrote was done with > intent. You, of course, can only take that as a tentative truth based > on your prior knowledge that only humans communicate well on the > internet. > > > > Again you are > > > using poor examples and not really trying to explain the criteria you > > > are using to determine what is a "pattern" and what is a "design". I, > > > OTOH, have a pretty clear way of determining what represents a pattern > > > and what represents a design ("designs" are those patterns that were > > > influenced by a known conscious agent acting with intent). > > > Patterns are models or distributions of objects. > > > Using distributions in the pattern or design sense? > > Again, the distinction between distributions that are only patterns > and those that are in the subset of design that I make has been > stated. The latter are > > > > > 1) In a presentation the design engineer showed the distribution of > > objects on a chart - design. > > Yet again with unclear examples rather than clear definition. You have > not claimed that the engineer *designed* or *influenced* the > distribution of objects on the chart. If he did not, we would have to > draw upon other knowledge about the objects on the chart and their > source and the nature of their distribution in order to determine if > the "pattern" on the chart is *also* "design" in addition to > "pattern". You need to be clearer.

Indeed one needs to be clearer. It like the man scrambling a bag of marbles and selecting one, is it selection at random or a random selection? Prof. Janet wrote back in 1870 that "..... natural selection is Epicurean chance by another name...." In other words they used NS to represent chance, I used NS in preferential selection to represent design , since NS has no meaning. Only the ideas have meaning. One can't therefore say NS is random or "non-random natural selection" as is done today. We might have a non-random, directed , volitional idea today, which NS is used as a proxy for, but such idea would differ from what was understood in 1870.

The confusion comes in that people are trying to assign actual meanings to words, they only represent ideas, only ideas have meaning.

> But it would be easiest if you > just told me how you go about determining the difference between > "pattern" and "design".

I am afraid this is a lost cause, we will never agree.

> Or perhaps you are using "design" to refer to the pattern that is > formed in the engineer's mind that he is trying to communicate?

Anything is possible, the ambiguity with words means I would have to set out in detail the various "random selections" or "selections at random" and what it represents in context.

> > 2) After the tornado struck there lay a distribution of objects on the > > ground - pattern. > No designer was involved in creating or ideating the pattern.

True, to some extent,there is no such thing as utter meaningless or randomness.

}}}

375 Edit

{{{ On Jul 19, 10:48 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 1:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 7:39 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 12:13 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 4:45 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > In my example with "Preferential selection"(natural selection) and > > > > "preferential forced selection" (natural artificial selection), I used > > > > arbitrary terms and words to convey a highly specific idea in the > > > > design sense. The pattern / design distinction was crystal clear to > > > > everybody. Either the universe made itself or it was made. > > > > Both of those terms are "design" by my understanding of your use of > > > the word because both are due to the actions of a knowable designer. > > > Artificial, natural, preferential don't mean design or pattern, they > > can be used to represent a pattern or design concept. > > > 1) The tornado struck four times , > > Where? Completely flat land? > > > making a preferential selection for > > the houses on the left. > > Four examples (assuming the other conditions are the same) is probably > going to be considered insufficient to determine "preference" as > opposed to "chance" even if all four instances wound up destroying the > house on the left. The probability that the tornado would hit all > four houses on one side by chance alone is 1/8 (for specifically the > left side it is 1/16). Compared to 6/16 that would be 2 left:2 right > and 3/16 that would be 3 lefts and a right (as well as another 3/16 > that would be 3 rights and a left). > > > > > In this instance the term "preferential selection" was used in the > > pattern sense. > Based on what? Why is this in the "pattern" sense rather than in the > "design" sense like when you used the same phrase to apply to a human > making a choice he preferred? And would it still be a "pattern" if > the tornado had struck the house on the left twice and the one on the > right twice? Would a random pattern be a "design" if done by a > tornado? By a human unconsciously without intent? By a human > consciously with intent?

> And why are "pattern" and "design" a dichotomy rather than one being a subset of the other?

If all designs are subset of pattern, then what you just wrote is a pattern, meaning we can't believe a word you say.

> Again you are > using poor examples and not really trying to explain the criteria you > are using to determine what is a "pattern" and what is a "design". I, > OTOH, have a pretty clear way of determining what represents a pattern > and what represents a design ("designs" are those patterns that were > influenced by a known conscious agent acting with intent).

> Patterns are models or distributions of objects.

Using distributions in the pattern or design sense?

1) In a presentation the design engineer showed the distribution of objects on a chart - design.

2) After the tornado struck there lay a distribution of objects on the ground - pattern.

}}}

371 Edit

{{{ On Jul 19, 4:45 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > All words only have meaning when sent by "signal sender" and "received > and interpreted" by a receiver. Which is why we have dictionaries and > learn the meanings of words and how to communicate those meanings. > The problem is that you are the perpetually ignorant receiver that > does not understand nor want to understand the language being sent.

> > As noted in other threads Darwin never said "Differential reproductive > > success", yet journal article after journal article insists that > > Darwin said so. > No. They point out that that modern phrase, used in definitions of NS, > is a more accurate rendition of what Darwin meant and more accurately > conveys the modern understanding of NS than the phrase 'survival of > the fittest' that Darwin did use (although even Darwin did not > particularly like that phrase for precisely the reasons that led to > its replacement in modern definition).

Since SoF and NS has no meaning one is free to use either symbol as a proxy for a single concept. This is how John Tyndall and everybody around 1859 - 1922 understood the concept. It represented a logical validity ".... favorable became more common....." being explicitly stated turning it into a truism from which followed a non-sequitur (monkey gave birth to talking monkey). The question was asked what did the first talking monkey's mom looked like? In reply it was stated: What did the first French speaker's mom look like. I pointed out that this was a false analogy because the first French speaker's mom had the same morphological features as the child. In the non-talking monkey to talking monkey transition the vocal cords had to etc.

In my example with "Preferential selection"(natural selection) and "preferential forced selection" (natural artificial selection), I used arbitrary terms and words to convey a highly specific idea in the design sense. The pattern / design distinction was crystal clear to everybody. Either the universe made itself or it was made.

}}}

201 Edit

{{{ http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/04/todays_tautology_egnor_writes_1.php

"....One more quick example of Egnor's idiocy, and I'll stop. Later in his post, he says:

A salient characteristic of a strong scientific theory is the combination of its logical improbability and its empirical verification.

"Logical improbability" is a meaningless term. Egnor is playing the "Mr. Spock" game of logic - trying to use the credibility of formal mathematical logic to give weight to something that has nothing to do with logic....."

Carol wrote: "....."Logical improbability" is a meaningless term...." - with this I agree. It seems Egnor has a semantic slip here. He is also incorrect in stating that natural selection is a tautology, it isn't even a sentence, only the many and varied ideas for which NS is used as a proxy can be a tautology.

1=1 is logical, how it could be a "logical improbability" isn't known. Lets presume Egnor meant "improbability -> unverifiable", then "Logically unverifiable" would make sense. This in turn only makes sense if we state: ".... Logical validity's can't be refuted but neither verified..."

Thus lets try to rephrase Egnor's sentence to make sense:

A salient characteristic of a strong scientific theory is its assumption of axiomatic logical unverifiability , irrefutability validity's and its empirical verification assuming such validities.

(I don't think the above rephrase was a success..... can anybody try and improve on it....)

}}}

200 Edit

{{{ On Jul 15, 7:39 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > He did not use natural selection to "explain" inheritance. He used "natural selection" and > > > > > "inheritance by unknown mechanisms" to explain change over many generations. > > > > Huxley said darwin used NS in the "result of accidents" sense. But > > > > this perplexed Darwin as you pointed out with his letters to Asa Gray, > > > > which is why Darwin said chance was an "...incorrect expression..." > > > > Note that we must deduce what he meant with "incorrect" from the > > > > context used as Dr. Wilkins and I quoted the full passage in this > > > > thread. > > > Of course, in modern terminology, chance or the result of stochastic > > > accidents (aka mutation) *is* the ultimate source of the necessary > > > variation upon which NS acts.

> > Using acts in the design sense? > No. The same process of selection in which there *is* a detectable > designer is what Darwin called AS, not NS.

He meant "contemplated selection" with AS. When a person allows only certain types of dogs to mate in order to achieve an outcome, such a selection is a "contemplated decision". It might be a "forced contemplated decision" or a more "natural contemplated decision" depending on circumstance. In this context does "natural artificial selection" make any sense?

How would one interpret "natural artificial selection" in this context in terms of Wilkins view that there is no natural selection or artificial selection, only "selection". So on it goes, we can see how we can get ourselves in semantic knot, if we assign actual meanings to words.

}}}

188 Edit

{{{ On Jul 15, 5:45 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 2:38 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 14, 9:14 pm, John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:46:50 -0700 (PDT), backspace > > > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >On Jul 14, 6:34 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 14, 11:23 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote: > > > > >> > Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote: > > > >> > > On Jul 14, 1:01 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > On Jul 14, 3:47 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> The critical passage in Darwin's letter to Asa Gray is the following: > > > >> > > > > > >> "I cannot think that the world . . . is the result of chance; and yet > > > >> > > > > > >> I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design. . . . I > > > >> > > > > > >> am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle" (F. Darwin, 353-54). > > > >> > > > > > >> And "But I know that I am in the same sort of muddle . . . as all the > > > >> > > > > > >> world seems to be in with respect to freewill, yet with everything > > > >> > > > > > >> supposed to have been foreseen or pre-ordained" (p. 378). > > > > >> > > > Darwin wrote in the 5th edition "....chance is an incorrect > > > >> > > > expression...." while using chance throughout his book. Which shows > > > >> > > > that "natural selection" has no meaning. > > > > >> > > How come googling "chance is an incorrect expression" returns nothing > > > >> > > besides your own posts? > > > > >> > Of course Stephanus has clipped and misquoted: > > > > >> > "I HAVE hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and > > > >> > multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser > > > >> > degree with those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of > > > >> > course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge > > > >> > plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." > > > > >> > Chapter V, page 165 in the fifth edition. > > > > >> > Incidentally, Darwin uses the term "chance" 72 times in that edition and > > > >> > almost all, besides this one, refer to the chances of a variation > > > >> > surviving; in other words, it is the likelihood of a variant surviving > > > >> > through natural selection. But what he said was "incorrect" is the claim > > > >> > that variation arises due to chance. Instead he said that we do not know > > > >> > the causes. Well, now we do... > > > > >> And Darwin was wrong on that point. Variation arises due to mutation, > > > >> which occurs by chance wrt need. But no scientist requires Darwin to > > > >> be omniscient or perfect. > > > > >Mutation is a genetic concept, Darwin didn't know about genes. Why > > > >then is Darwin's term "natural selection" used in a description of > > > >genes, how did darwin solve a problem he couldn't define. > > > > Darwin didn't know about Mendelian genetics. Clearly he understood > > > that traits were inherited (as did everyone else,) he just didn't > > > understand how. > > > Then how did he explain inheritance with "natural selection". > > He didn't. All he needed to know was that there was a heritable > mechanism that affected the transmission of traits from generation to > generation. And that evolution by natural selection was due to such a > mechanism of heritability.

Confuses cause with effect. Heritability is an effect, the cause is a topological mathematical algorithm in an unseen dimension which is symbolically reflected in embryos unfolding. First came the schrodinger equation, then came the atom. First Navier Stokes equations existed before the first drop of water flowed. The math (Language) existed before matter existed. Mind before matter.

> He did not use natural selection to "explain" inheritance. He used "natural selection" and > "inheritance > by unknown mechanisms" to explain change over many generations.

Huxley said darwin used NS in the "result of accidents" sense. But this perplexed Darwin as you pointed out with his letters to Asa Gray, which is why Darwin said chance was an "...incorrect expression..." Note that we must deduce what he meant with "incorrect" from the context used as Dr. Wilkins and I quoted the full passage in this thread.

}}}

311 Edit

{{{ On Jul 15, 5:59 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 4:17 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 6:06 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > === Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html > > > > "...Sober [1984:99] illustrates the process in this way: imagine a > > > child's toy that has numbers of three different size balls in a > > > container, with two internal layers that have increasingly smaller > > > holes in them. Shaking the toy (a randomising process) increases the > > > likelihood that the smaller balls will pass through the first filter, > > > and that the smallest balls through the second. The smallest balls > > > are, in effect, the most "fit" (or make the best fit) and make it > > > through to the bottom. There has been a selection, or sorting, process > > > which results in the smallest balls making it to the bottom...." > > > > Sober confused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomnesswith > > > automated selection. Lets mix the different size balls in a pot, > > > then we select out the smaller balls by hand, this is a directed, non- > > > random filtering process by a human. > > > > (Aristotelians would write directed while theists directed as per > > > Naming Conventions. Some believe that "novel accidents" are > > > continually taking place in trillions of possible parallel universes > > > including the small balls being selected3 out - it was just a novel > > > accident in parallel universe 154trillion). > > > > In order to automate the process the person designs a toy that will > > > allow specific size balls to pass through the layers and be selected2 > > > out. The toy didn't make2 itself, it was designed with a purpose2 - > > > automating the filtering2 process. > > > > Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample-(probability > > > sampling) automated design process. > > >http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=135497 > > "...Mr. Marshall suffers from the common creationist misapprehension > > that evolution is fundamentally a random process. It isn't. It is > > undirected, in the sense of not having long-term goals, but it is not > > random. The process of evolution proceeds through the interaction of > > random (with respect to fitness) mutations and natural selection. The > > latter is quite definitely a non-random process. Once again, evolution > > arises from the interaction of stochastic and non-stochastic > > processes, and is therefore not purely random...." > > > If evolution has no long term goals, does it then have short term > > goals? > Natural selection has a short term goal.

Do you mean the man eating cake having a "preferential selection" had a short term goal?

> It tends to optimize the > present generation to the environment their parents faced. But I have > mentioned that before.

1) The engineer optimized the software program.

Are you using optimize in the sense of 1).? > > Would long term be a metaphor for design and short term for > > pattern or must that be inverse. > > Neither. But since you haven't defined those terms, or define them in > contradictory ways, it is not possible to say. > > RBH wrote that NS arises from > > stochastic(random) and non-stochastic(design, intent , volition) > > process. > Non-stochastic does not mean "design" nor "intent" nor "volition". Correct, since words have no meaning.

> This is one of your ignorant definitions, which claims that any non- > randomness means "design". Non-stochastic means not stochastic or not > random wrt the features being examined. There are many examples of > non-randomness that have nothing an ordinary person would call > "design", "intent", or "volition".

In my belief system: All patterns are subset of design. Pattern is but my vain attempt at labeling something for which we don't know the signal sender/receive coda yet.

Your belief system: All design is subset of pattern. What this actually means I don't know.

We thus use the same symbols but project different world views based on our metaphysical reference frame. Everything we say is based on logical validity's such as (A or not-A) , but such validity's can't be verified nor refuted, they are taken by faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Your faith is the evidence for your world view and so is mine. Neither can be "empericially" verified, since not even 1=1 can be verified. All talk of scientific , empericisim is materialist hyperbole usually.

}}}

155 Edit

{{{ On Jul 12, 6:58 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If you follow Wilkins on his blog one will also note that "natural > > > > selection" has vanished from his lexicon of late. PZ Myers I think is > > > > an undercover 007 doubter of this whole "natural selection" issue, but > > > > has to be careful, he doesn't have tenure. The Epicureans in the US > > > > federal government , paying his salary will take him down if he > > > > missteps. > > > Their replacement would be to use the word "selection" alone, rather > > > than continuing to make Darwin's distinction between "natural" and > > > "artificial" since humans are "natural" agents. > > Natural or preferential agents? Because natural can be used in the > > pattern or design sense. > Indeed it can, and in the sense of "natural" being the opposite of > "supernatural", even "artificial" selection is "natural".

A forced(artificial) decision and natural(relaxed) decision are both designs usually. We can have a preferentiated decision but not a naturalated selection or natural selection.

> However, if you include the supernatural, there is no meaningful way of > distinguishing between "pattern" and "design" since *any* observation > can be claimed to be due to the "design" of a supernatural agent.

I agree sort of, will have to qualify what I mean by this in a follow up post. It will discuss what we perceive as a "pattern" could in fact be a hidden design or a design that we don't know what is the signal sender/receiver relationship yet. Mathematically we know what randomness isn't, we don't know what it is. My thesis I will put forth is that "randomness" is actually a super design that we don't yet know the signal sender/receiver coda yet.

Embryos unfold in some highly advanced mathematical topological space , their stages of unfolding happening in a specific sequence that will follow some abstract mathematical algorithm. }}}

154 Edit

{{{ On Jul 12, 5:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Differential reproductive success" as a partial description of what > is meant by "natural selection"

Who is this person ? With "NS" as a proxy for "preferential selection" in the design sense NS conveyed a meaningful concept, more specifically I as a conscious agent by the name of Stephanus Rensburg conveyed a meaningful concept. Only conscious agents can have intent and represent such intent using any combination of symbols in the pattern or design sense.

> is clearly better description than > your dishonest tautology claims, better than your use of undefined > terms you refuse to explain like "pattern" and "design", better than > your dishonest quote-mining, better than your distortion of the term > "natural" as used in "natural selection" into "preferential", better, > in fact, than *any* of the phony word games you play.

I can't distort the word "natural" because it has no meaning, only ideas can be distorted. }}}

170 Edit

{{{ On Jul 12, 1:43 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > A while back I posted on a phenomena where well known authors such as > > PZ Myers hardly ever say "natural selection".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thr... > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/94dcbb4... > > >http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past/ > > >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/now_the_climate_scientists... > > > Pilate wrote: "...Having said all this, the first thing I recommend is > > > to stop using the term "evolution" and start using "natural > > selection." It is an opportunity to say, "the theory is natural > > selection; evolution is an observable fact ...." > > > PZ replied: "....Except that the largest contribution to evolution and > > variation is not selection...." > PZ is right. At the DNA sequence level it is quite clear that the > largest contribution to evolution and variation is not selection.

> It is neutral (or near neutral) drift.

A word count using a python script on your posts would reveal "natural selection" and "reproductive success" , very little about "drift". Is "drift" a cybernetic or physical concept and how does it relate to Darwin's usage of natural selection because he used it a context absent genes.

> > If you follow Wilkins on his blog one will also note that "natural > > selection" has vanished from his lexicon of late. PZ Myers I think is > > an undercover 007 doubter of this whole "natural selection" issue, but > > has to be careful, he doesn't have tenure. The Epicureans in the US > > federal government , paying his salary will take him down if he > > missteps. > Their replacement would be to use the word "selection" alone, rather > than continuing to make Darwin's distinction between "natural" and > "artificial" since humans are "natural" agents.

Natural or preferential agents? Because natural can be used in the pattern or design sense.

}}}

155 Edit

{{{ On Jul 12, 1:24 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Not 'directed' in a tautological 'end-goal' sense. Only 'directed' > toward optimal fitness in local conditions.

A rock isn't optimized for its condition of existence because it is already described by its attributes. Does the following sentence make sense: Linux is adapted to its environment. (what do we mean with Linux and environment would be the first questions)

> Specifically, natural > selection is a mechanism for ensuring that the next generation is > better adapted to the environment their parents faced.

Natural selection is a symbol string, which I used as a design in my "preferential selection" example. Something for which NS is a proxy could be a mechanism, but not the symbol NS itself, since it has no meaning.

> That is, NS cannot forsee what the future will be; it can only affect a change

Which depends what we mean with NS. In my cake over toffee example the man did in fact forsee what the future would be in the design sense since he made a "preferential selection for cake over toffee". Darwin used NS in the pattern sense reformulating Aristotle as he wrote ".... we can see here the principle of NS shadowed forth ..." where he referred to Aristotle's "result of accident" view.

> that optimizes for the most recent past environment and does so > because those organisms most successful in that immediate past > environment will be more likely to be the parents of the next > generation.

Which is a rhetorical tautology independent of the arbitrary symbol NS with which you are associating it. > > I imagine myself in some vast Scientology like > > indoctrination saga, where everybody from Ken Ham, Dembski, Wilkins, > > Dawkins is getting their thinking warped in a "tautologified antonymic > > semantic inversion inflection experiment". > No. Your head is warped by your religion that lets you imagine that > everything is "designed"

IN other words your very sentence wasn't designed but is the result of random atoms collisions in your head, why should we then believe anything you say? }}}

144 Edit

{{{ On Jul 12, 2:57 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote: > hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> quoted backspace: > > > > If you follow Wilkins on his blog one will also note that "natural > > > selection" has vanished from his lexicon of late. > > Actually I talk about many things, and natural selection is not my main > topic of investigation. I mostly consider classification, and to a > lesser extent, the evolution of religion (which I consider a series of > adaptations, hence naturally seleced behaviours). > > Moreover, in some posts I argued that selection is ubiquitous and > prevalent in speciation (although I do not think speciation is typically > the result of selection for isolation).

> Moreover in a recent paper I > argued that selection and drift are not opposed "forces" because (i) > neither is a force, and (ii) drift occurs whenever alleles' fitnesses > are roughly neutral with respect to each other, and hence can occur at > high levels of selection for those alleles with respect to others.

If pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would they be? > So I wonder, if someone doesn't continually repeat themselves, does > backspace think they no longer believe something?

Yes, you are highly intelligent, certainly got more brains than I , knowing full well that "natural selection" like "Colorless green ideas" is meaningless. Only "Preferential selection" like "Bland immature ideas by an ignorant person" is meaningful. It took the genius of Chomsky and Popper for us to finally grasp this.

You Pz Myers, Chomsky and Fodor understand this better than Howard I am afraid. He is so caught up in his "differential reproductive success" and "natural selection" rhetoric that like a scientologist he probably has mentally gone over the cliff. }}}

134 Edit

{{{ On Jul 1, 1:05 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > My argument is with your incompetent and amateurish understanding of > definitions as used in science, the very area you claim minimal > competence in. Of course, I realize that your real goal in all your > semantic meanderings is to sow doubt and try to make the phrase > "natural selection" appear muddled nonsense.

Only ideas can be muddled nonsense. What was the idea Darwin had as opposed to today. Some tell us "natural selection can only be an effect" such as Chris Colby from talkorigins.org , in an article he wrote. In this same thread I projected a sensible idea of "preferential selection" using "natural selection" where natural was a proxy for appropriate or preferential given the biases of the man for cake over toffee.

Green could represent the color green1 or immaturity2. Colorless as no color1 or "bland2", "generic2" , "without life2". We have such a wide array of concepts that we must use subscripts as per http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions so we can document the views of various authors. SusuExp views "natural selectoin" as a stochastic process. Nobody really knows what he means, it must first be documented with subscripts.

}}}

141 Edit

{{{ On Jul 10, 5:12 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:37 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection > > > "...Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable > > characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of > > any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more > > common in a population (see allele frequency)...." > > > Is acts used in the pattern, design or "...pattern subset of > > design ...." sense. Darwin also said > > "....Natural selection acts ...." but used acts in the chance, > > randomness, pattern sense. > > Here you go again, conflating randomness with pattern. Darwin > undoubtedly said "Natural selection acts" somewhere, but it is *you* > who are claiming he was using it in a chance or random sense. He was > undoubtedly using it in the sense of not being a conscious act by > nature or environment (that is, natural selection is not done by a > conscious agent), but (and the word "selection" is the key here) was > not claiming that the selection produced a random result.

In my other examples I constructed a story of a man eating cake and toffee where "natural selection" was used to convey "preferential selection" or "appropriate selection" as opposed to "artificial selection" or "forced selection". We all agreed that the concept conveyed was meaningful and that "natural selection" (to my own amazement ) actually managed to convey a meaningful concept, because "natural selection" has no meaning, only the idea I had has meaning.

Thus a decision can be contemplated, preferential, forced, hasty, relaxed or stressed etc. But what would a "natural" selection or "artificial" selection then be? It can only be used as a proxy for a defined concept such as "preferential" in a given context. My point is that I simply can't grasp what "natural" in "natural selection" can be a proxy for in the context of a chicken as a symbolic representation of an IPC (inverted pendulum control) algorithm. (First came the algorithm , then came the chicken. Mind before matter).

Lets presume "preferential selection". The evolution story would go something like this: Over a period of 5bil years there arose a common ancestor, from which a chicken evolved by the process of "preferential selection".

What could this possibly mean? We would need to know who says "preferential selection" and the context it was used in, thus far I am the only person in this universe who has put a "preferential" or "appropriate" spin on "natural" in "natural selection". To my own amazement I actually managed to construct a sentence using "natural selection" and "artificial selection" where it conveyed a clear cut meaningful concept , whatever your world view.

From the natural selection PDF's tutorial I have downloaded from scribd (something like that) they are using "natural selection" to induce a sort of "perverse antonym" thinking. A person says "selection" but doesn't mean decision. He uses "non-random" but doesn't mean directed. I imagine myself in some vast Scientology like indoctrination saga, where everybody from Ken Ham, Dembski, Wilkins, Dawkins is getting their thinking warped in a "tautologified antonymic semantic inversion inflection experiment".

}}}

222 Edit

{{{ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

"...Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency)...."

Is acts used in the pattern, design or "...pattern subset of design ...." sense. Darwin also said "....Natural selection acts ...." but used acts in the chance, randomness, pattern sense.

Note the obvious tautology3 ".... those with an advantage will become more common ...." Where their population increase was measured in terms of their "advantage" and their "advantage" measured in terms of becoming more common. It says the same thing twice, but doesn't explain why they became more common.

I executed 26 winning trades out of 28 on http://stocktwits.com/stephanusR. Saying that therefore I was a "good" forex trader doesn't explain how the laws of probability was bent. Because the market follows a random walk, 99% of all forex traders eventually lose money for this reason.

}}}

175 Edit

{{{ On Jul 9, 8:05 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:53 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Rather than use examples unrelated to the biological meaning of the > > phrases "natural selection", "artificial selection", and "selective > > neutrality", let's use examples that clearly point out their meaning. > > I will give you an opportunity to make simple replies, but you will > > *also* have to justify those replies. I will justify what I say by > > always giving a "because". > > > Remember that "natural selection" involves a comparison of two > > alternative features in an organism on some metric of "differential > > reproductive success". > > Who says differential reproductive success? What technical concept > does it represent from which journal article. Again if Fred the frog > is a success then why isn't fred a happy frog. Successful and happy > frogs..... simply incredible. Ken miller says NS is blind, but then > why isn't NS stupid..

Did Ken Miller in the youtube video on IC where he said that ".... NS is blind ...." use blind in the pattern or design sense?

1) The tornado blindly selected the house on the left for destruction. - pattern.

2) The man blindly purchased the house on the right, later regretting it after AIG nearly collapsed the world economy with credit default swap. - design. }}}

174 Edit

{{{ On Jul 9, 1:53 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Rather than use examples unrelated to the biological meaning of the > phrases "natural selection", "artificial selection", and "selective > neutrality", let's use examples that clearly point out their meaning. > I will give you an opportunity to make simple replies, but you will > *also* have to justify those replies. I will justify what I say by > always giving a "because". > > Remember that "natural selection" involves a comparison of two > alternative features in an organism on some metric of "differential > reproductive success". I will use the metric of "differential > survival until reproductive maturity" in my examples, but remember > that there are other possible ways of measuring 'reproductive > success'. > > We will be looking at an imaginary organism (but one that has features > like many real ones), the Lake Monroe Oysters. The oysters have two > alternative features: some are red and taste like shit, others are > blue and taste like ambrosia. Once a year, the oysters put out their > little legs and walk to a small pond, given the name of its owner, > Gene Poole Pond, where they dump in all their gametes (sperm and eggs) > into a tiny pond and shortly die without ever going back to Lake > Monroe. But all the little oysters walk from Gene Poole Pond back to > Lake Monroe, where they either grow up over the course of the next > year or die. The survivors then repeat the process to make the next > generation. > > Example One > > The adults that go to Gene Poole Pond are 30% red/shit and 70% blue/ > ambrosia. They empty their gametes into the Gene Poole Pond and, > because fusion to produce zygotes is a random process according to > Mendelian genetics and the rules of Hardy-Weinberg, we get just about > 30% red and 70% blue progeny in the pond that will travel back to Lake > Monroe. Quite a number of these progeny will die over the course of > the year (see Malthus for an explanation). But, when we look at the > progeny that survive their year in Lake Monroe and go back to the Gene > Poole Pond for the next oyster orgy, we observe that 30% are red and > 70% are blue. What this means is that there has been no > "*differential* survival until reproductive maturity" with respect to > the two alternative features (phenotypes) we are following: red or > blue. That is, all the death that has occurred was due either to > chance alone or to features unlinked to the color/taste of the > oysters. The key feature to look at is the % of red versus blue in > the parent generation and in their adult progeny. [Now, of course, the > actual %s will probably not be *exactly* 30/70 for the same reason you > would not expect to get *exactly* 50 heads: 50 tails every time you > flipped an honest coin 100 times. But there are statistical ways to > determine whether the observed result is *significantly* different > from such a random expectation and observing 31% to 69% would not be a > surprising result if the numbers were small. A second minor point, > but an evolutionarily important one, is that, as many a gambler has > found out, "chance has no memory". If the new % entering the Gene > Poole Pond is 31%/69%, the expectation of chance is that that (rather > than 30/70) would be the %s entering Lake Monroe and exiting it the > next year.] > > This is an example of the *absence* of "significant differential > selection". Or, if you prefer, an example where neither color had any > *differential* effect on survival. In biology, this pure chance > process is NOT called "natural selection" precisely because there is > no *differential* selection related to the features. This example is > called "selective neutrality" and leads to "neutral drift". Again, > this is NOT considered "natural selection". However, the random walk > that occurs by "neutral drift" does lead to evolution (genetic change) > over time to the extent that these features are genetic. > > To summarize: In the absence of evidence for *selection*, there is no > "natural selection"; there is "selective neutrality" leading to > "neutral drift". IOW, pure chance and only chance is NOT "natural > selection". Because there is no *differential selection* at all, > unless it was done by a designer who was trying and succeeding in > mimicking a completely random process (which is very difficult for > humans to do without a random number generator of some kind), there is > no way to call such a result a product of "design". So "selective > neutrality" is almost always a "pattern" and *specifically* is always > a "random pattern" wrt the measured metric of "differential > reproductive success between the two alternative features". The only > way such a result can ever be a "design" is when a "designer" > *successfully* mimics a random, pure chance result. The only way to > know that is by knowledge of the existence and intent of the > "designer". It would be impossible to tell by examination of the > "pattern" alone. > > Now, it is your turn. Does the above described process that > biologists call "selective neutrality" produce "pattern" or "design". > Explain why you think so, if your thinking differs from mine.

My world view is only within a YEC pattern design dichotomy. This was also the world view the last 5800 years from Adam, Noah to Gandalf the tribal wizard, Augustus right up to about 1859 before Darwin got himself and the rest of humanity tautologified. The Lucre

The words, symbols and expressions I use are from before 1859, immersed in King James English, representing the same world view they had back then. Wilkins laid his finger on the problem saying how our language is volitional and thus not suited to discuss concepts in biology. In other words he , you and other Epicureans are using symbols that for the last 5800 was used in a strict pattern/design dichotomy.

You have stated ".... design is subset of pattern...." I don't know what that means, it clashes with my world view, thus I can't parse anything you say.

PierreMaupertuis 1759 - "....There is some mechanism out there by which individuals survived, they had an internal FITNESS and those that perished didn't...". Fitness was a different symbol for the Arsitotle concept of "internal sponteinity", the symbols changed but not the concept.

}}}

171 Edit

{{{ > > "Artificial selection", as a phrase, is a specific type of breeding program run by > > humans. > > AS as a phrase can be used in either the pattern or design sense as in > "forced selection". > > > "Natural selection", as a phrase, is a 'breeding' program in > > which choices are made by natural environment and not human choice. > > Where such choice is used in the pattern and not design sense. Because > the word choice has no meaning.

In other words I basically squeezed some sort of a meaning out this piece of semantic trash - natural selection. Because decisions aren't "natural" , they can though be "appropriate" or "forced", but not artificial. This was done in the same vane as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously

Attempts at meaningful interpretations: "....The sentence can be given an interpretation through polysemy. Both green and colorless have figurative meanings, which still make us able to interpret colorless as "nondescript" and green as "immature". So the sentence can be constructed as "nondescript immature ideas have violent nightmares", a phrase with less oblique semantics. In particular, the phrase can have legitimate meaning too, if green is understood to mean "newly-formed" and sleep can be used to figuratively express mental or verbal dormancy. An equivalent sentence would be "Newly formed bland ideas are inexpressible in an infuriating way...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy "..Polysemy is the capacity for a sign to have multiple meanings (sememes), i.e., a large semantic field. This is a pivotal concept within social sciences, such as media studies and linguistics...."

Which is wrong because signs, words and symbols have no meaning. A symbol can though represent symbolically many meanings. Thus to come back to Wilkins question to Fodor: ".... does Fodor think selection is a myth ...."

Wilkins didn't really ask Fodor whether he things "appropriate selections" is a myth, the mistake he and everybody else from Ken Ham to Dawkins is making is assigning an actual meaning to the word "selection": It has no meaning, your idea with Natural selection has a meaning - who is the person that you are interpreting? }}}

170 Edit

{{{ On Jul 7, 7:14 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I wasn't asking about "selection" and whether it was in the design or > > > pattern sense, although you clearly don't know what those words mean. > > > I was asking about the difference between "natural" and "artificial". > > > You can consider "selection" to be either pattern or design, since > > > neither choice should change your answer to the question I actually > > > asked. > > What would be the difference between 1 , 2,3 and 4: > > 1) The man made a natural decision to eat the sweet. > > 2) The man made an artificial decision to eat the sweet. > > 3) The man made a natural selection by eating the sweet. > > 4) The man made an artificial selection by eating the sweet. > The sentences are incomplete ideas, since they have no context. Correct, without context you can't deduce what was the intent. Let me now give the context they were used in, the background knowledge.

John likes cake but not toffee. He was at a party with only 90% toffee and 10% cake. He made a decision, a selection of cake above toffee while there was still cake. The decision was "natural" or more "appropriate" given his biases. In this context "natural" is a proxy for "appropriate" and not "chance" as darwin used natural. Even though the decision was a "natural selection" it had nothing to do with chance, the idea Darwin, burroughs, osborn, Kingsley had in 1863 - 1921.

Later on as the last cake was taken with only toffee left he had to make a selection or choice: Either take the toffee or leave it alone, given the social context that he was expected to eat sweets to show his appreciation to his hosts. Very reluctantly he made an "artificial" selection or "forced" decision.

> Specifically, I have no idea what the alternative decision to "eating > the sweet" was. Without that, I cannot determine if the man's choice > or selection was "natural" to what humans would typically do.

It was cake.

> Given that, from context, the sentences above are obviously NOT using > the *phrases* "natural selection" and "artificial selection" in the > sense it is used in biology

Correct, because artificial selection like natural selection has no meaning. The ideas though of "more appropriate" and "forced" has meaning.

> (in fact, not using them as phrases at > all), I fail to see the relevance of this exercise.

Words have no meaning, only ideas have meaning.

> "Artificial selection", as a phrase, is a specific type of breeding program run by > humans.

AS as a phrase can be used in either the pattern or design sense as in "forced selection".

> "Natural selection", as a phrase, is a 'breeding' program in > which choices are made by natural environment and not human choice.

Where such choice is used in the pattern and not design sense. Because the word choice has no meaning.

}}}

asdf Edit

{{{ On Jul 7, 6:35 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 4:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 3:20 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 6, 3:33 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 6:20 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > I am trying to *clarify* your murky, ambiguous, unclear thinking.: > > > > > 3) Do you recognize that there are empirical statistical ways of > > > > > determining whether a "pattern" is random or non-random? > > > > > Depends what you mean with random or non-random. > > > > For a single feature, it is random if its distribution on a metric is, > > > statistically, represented by a bell curve, binomial distribution, or > > > some other distribution that relies solely on chance. For pairs of > > > variables, the null hypothesis state often is that there is no > > > significant interaction between the two variables. That is, the > > > variables do not correlate with each other. For a difference (this is > > > what typically applies in NS) the null hypothesis is no difference > > > between the two variables on the metric. > > > > > Many today say "non-random natural selection". When you ask them who > > > > did the directing, they insist that "non-random" doesn't mean > > > > directed. > > > > Again, if *you* define "design" as any non-random pattern and *assume* > > > that the existence of a non-random pattern is sufficient evidence that > > > a "designer" exists, then your question makes sense. > > > Do you mean "directed pattern" with "non-random pattern"? > > The question I asked is if *you* think that "directed pattern" and > "non-random pattern" and "design" are the same thing. And my answer > depends on whether *you* think that "directed" patterns necessarily > require an animate intelligent "director" or, instead, can include > "non-intelligent natural forces or states" as the "director". Until > you tell me what *you* mean by these terms, any answer I give will not > be providing you with information about my meaning but will be nothing > but a muddled mush in your brain. Unlike you, I am *trying* to > understand what *you* mean by these terms, as I consider that a > necessary prelude to communication. The questions I am asking are not > hard or confusing questions unless your mind is a hopeless mush or you > are intentionally resorting to bafflegarb to avoid thought. > > > > Otherwise, using *normal* definitions of "design", when one sees non-randomness in a > > > result, one can ask the question of *what* caused the non-random > > > results. > > > That *what* does not have to be an animate agent. > > > Design always involves a conscious agent from YEC, which could be > > wrong. > > Fine. Then the criteria required for defining an object, an event, or > a result as "design" lies in the "defining feature" of the word, > namely the "conscious agent". Absent identification of a conscious > agent involved in directing, selecting, ideating, creating, > manufacturing the object, event, or result you call "design", there is > no empirical evidence of "design". And, as I point out, claiming a > supernatural conscious agent (such as God, fairies, gremlins, or > whatever) that cannot be empirically identified makes any and all the > distinctions between the words "pattern" and "design" moot. > > > Instead of fighting the world view rather create a Naming > > Conventions page and label the YEC usage of Design with a subscript > > such as Design2(Design in design sense), Design1(design in the pattern > > sense) > > > > It can be something like a flood. You will have to make up your mind. > > > A flood shaping the landscape is a pattern. > > A sculptor shaping an image of a lion is a design. > > Note that these examples are poor, sloppy wording. Let me correct it: > > A flood shaping the landscape *produces* a pattern. The flood is a > non-conscious agent that produces a "non-random" result wrt which > items are shaped by it; such a "non-random" result is a "pattern".

Are you using "non-random" in the pattern sense? Because usually non-random is used in the directed , design volition sense. Floods don't have intent, there is no encoding/decoding mechanism there.

> A sculptor shaping clay into the image of a lion *produces* a > pattern. *Because* a sculptor is a conscious agent and is responsible > for this "non-random" result, or "pattern", you and I both consider > this "non-random" result to be "design".

Agreed. > If your reasoning > is that the first "non-random pattern" is produced by a non-conscious > agent and the second "non-random pattern" is produced by a "conscious > agent", then what you seem to be saying is that the difference between > "non-random pattern" and "non-random design" is the presence of a > conscious agent in the second example.

Don't put words in my mouth, rather quote the relevant passages

> That is, the distinction *you* > are making between "pattern" and "design" is that the latter has > evidence for a "designer".

Citations?

> Note that such a distinction *differs* from other definitions you have > been making, where you claim that all you need to know to make a > distinction between "pattern" and "design" is that the "pattern" be > non-random.

Quote please, I don't recall.

> That is, > sometimes using the word "design" so that the patterns produced by a > flood would meet that definition (when you claim that all "non-random > pattern" is "design", that is what you are doing) and, at other times, > considering the patterns produced by a flood to not be "design",

I am asking what does an author mean with "non-random natural selection" does this mean directed selection in the volition sense? If not why is non-random being used, Wikipedia uses the term in the volition sense in the prob. articles.

> "pattern (when you use the definition of "design" that requires a > conscious agent). I am not arguing that "design" cannot be used in a > metaphorical sense. I am asking you whether that is the sense *you* > are using it in when you make the distinction between "design" and > "pattern" in this argument. *And* whether you are willing to *stick* > to that distinction throughout a discussion rather than float between > them in that mental mush you call a mind. This is a simple question. > A simple answer should suffice.

Bless, your heart, I will pray for you tonight as well as everybody else reading this thread that you come to the knowledge of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate Design incarnate.

}}}

from post 40: Edit

> === What is natural selection === > Articulett: > Evolution is NOT about randomness unless you mean "unpredictable"-- > but that doesn't help you understand it more. Evolution is about what > gets passed on and why-- that is "natural selection"-- and calling it > "random" has no explanatory power and confuses more than it clarifies. > Which is why creationists use it.

In the balls filtering example with the ever reducing holes that filters out variable size balls thrue each layer we are dealing with predictable unpredictability. We can predict which size ball will be filtered throug, a design process, but we can't predict which of the same size balls numbered 1 to 10 will be filtered out first.

Thus when Articulett wrote "...randomness unless you mean "unpredictable"...." , the meaning can't be decoded , the single word "unpredictable" doesn't help us discern the pattern or design sense in which her sentence is used. All prose, poetry and sentences can only be in either the patter or design sense. Did Articulett use "unpredictable" in the predictable unpredictability sense or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense?

80 Edit

{{{ On Jul 5, 2:16 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 5:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 4, 10:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 4, 1:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Frankly, I still see you trying to avoid actually analyzing the > > > meaning behind the terms you claim to be trying to understand. > > > Instead you keep on presenting a fatally flawed dichotomous option > > > between two single events as your example despite the impossibility of > > > determining either 'pattern' or 'design' from single events. > > > In other words your entire essay was just a pattern, thus how can we > > believe anything you say ? > > And your examples, by themselves, represent neither pattern nor > design. You cannot get a pattern from a single event.

1. The fisherman accumulated fish this morning - design. 2. A tornado hit the mountain, dislodging stones, which accumulated on the floor - pattern. 3. The tornado selected the house on the left for destruction. - pattern 4. The man selected the house on the right to purchase. - design 5. Toyota designed a robot via a process of "descent with modification" - design. 6. By long eons of evolution there arose a common ancestor via "descent with modification" or natural selection - pattern.

Even though 6 contains *modification* it was used in the pattern sense while 5 used it in the design sense. }}}

78 Edit

{{{ On Jul 4, 10:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 1:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 4, 6:18 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 4, 9:36 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [BOTTOM][TOP]onar aam > > > > >http://groups.google.fm/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/6d9... > > > > ".....Survival of the fittest is indeed a tautolgy. (not that there is > > > > anything wrong in that. All internally consistent conceptual > > > > frameworks are tautologies.) But the statement needn't have to be a > > > > tautology. Fitness can take on a definition which intrinsically > > > > separates it from survival. This is done by Ben Goertzel in his "The > > > > Evolving Mind". He uses fitness as in "fit like a glove". In other > > > > words, a social/ecological concept. The underlying assumption here is > > > > that ecologies are governed by emergent differentiation. In ecologies > > > > emergent interrelations are formed (e.g. different niches) and > > > > Goertzel's idea is that fitness means that these structures don't > > > > "crash" or intersect. Species will tend to avoid each others niches. > > > > Thus, his contention is that those species that fit into an ecological > > > > structure will tend to survive................" > > > > > "Survival of the fittest" on its own is logical validity - Tautology1. > > > > "Survival of the fittest and therefore my mommy had a long tail and > > > > scratched for fleas" is a rhetorical tautology3, the conclusion is a > > > > non-sequitur. There certainly is nothing wrong with "survival of the > > > > fittest" , "A or not-A" and "what happens, happens" as a logical > > > > validity. All internally consistent conceptual frameworks are based on > > > > type Tautology1. Logical fallacies are type Tautology3. > > > So, rather than actually try to think independently, you have suddenly > > > decided to avoid thought by using quotations from others. I have, in > > > some detail, described not only how "natural selection" is more > > > accurately defined than by the phrase "survival of the fittest", but > > > also showed, in some detail, how one can empirically determine whether > > > a comparison represents "selection" rather than "selective > > > neutrality". > > > Since the symbol "selection" has no meaning it can't be defined, only > > ideas can be defined. > > I have explicitly described how you go about empirically > distinguishing between "selection" and "absence of selection" and > pointed out that, when the selecting agent is a natural force (like > temperature), one can only do so on a population basis and not an > individual basis.

A population is a sampling of individuals.

> > 1) The tornado selected the house on the left to destroy - pattern. > > 2) The man selected the house on the right to buy - design. > Both fail the requirements for exhibiting the features of either > "pattern" or "design." Pattern (and its subset, design) require more > than a single event.

It is not known what you mean with ".... pattern subset of design...." do you believe that your thoughts are just random patterns? If so how can we believe anything you say.

> It requires a population of events. And it also > requires that you tell me if a "random pattern" is included in what > you call "pattern".

"random pattern" like "self-organization" can be used in either the pattern or design sense.

> We can ask the man if he consciously chose the house on > the right and ask him his reasons for making that choice rather than > the opposite. He may tell us an untruth (not necessarily a lie, which > requires conscious intent to deceive). But we cannot do that with > tornados.

> There we can only ask if tornados have a significant > statistical bias toward destroying houses on the left side of a street > (and you do have to specify whether that is left facing the direction > the tornado is headed or it is a meaningless statement).

red herring.

> If every collection of events represents a pattern, if only a > statistically 'random' pattern, then the only distinction worth making > is between pattern and design. Design requires the existence of a > detectable designer.

Depends who says so. Has anybody established this or is it your opinion.

> > The symbol "selection" is no more a design or pattern than circle > > means round. It has no meaning, thus can't be defined or redefined. In > > the contexts used the symbol "selection" was used to convey either a > > pattern or design concept. > And I am *trying* yet again to get you to tell me what *you* mean by > selection and how you identify when it has occurred.

It is like love and beauty , if you don't know what it is I can't help you.

> I have told you > what *I* mean. I mean, by the word "selection", the *idea* and > *empirical reality* of a statistical bias for or against one of two > choices in a constant environment.

Using choices in the pattern or design sense?

> When selection occurs, we get a non-random pattern, a statistical bias.

If you are using selection in the design sense.

> When selection does not occur, we get a random pattern, a pattern that indicates no > discrimination between choices in a constant environment.

Depends whether choices is used in the pattern or design sense.

> > Depends what you define as a natural selection, cite actual passages > > from OoS or some modern text. Note that you can't cite yourself as per > > the Wikipedia NOR (no original research) policy. There is nothing new > > under the sun, one can only interpret other people. > Which is how I presented my definition. Most modern definitions of > "natural selection" are using it as a way to explain a particular type > of evolutionary change and thus focus on genotype rather than > phenotype.

Nobody knows what a phenotype or a genotype is.

> I have repeatedly discussed the distinction between > "natural" selection and "artificial" selection as those terms are used > by Darwin.

NS was a pattern, AS a design.

> Your problem lies in the term "selection." Every > definition of NS I have read in biology and genetic and population > genetic texts clearly discriminate between "selection" and "selective > neutrality" as being a comparison of pheno/genotypes in an environment > on a metric of reproductive success (including the metric of > differential survival).

But nobody can tell us who says DRS.

> Such a metric of reproductive success or > survival (to the extent that it is positively correlated with > reproductive success) is often considered a metric of "fitness".

Fitness or suitability was a different word for Lucretius's concept of "internal spontanity" as interpreted by James Hutton (can't remember now, it is on my wiki though)

> IOW, > the only change I have made from standard definitions is one that

There is no standard definition of selection, it has no definition, only the ideas Darwin had was defined.

> makes the modern definition more general than NS solely as related to > its potential in evolution.

NS has no potential because it means nothing, only the ideas by authors has meaning, who are they?

> > Draw a Venn diagram, place in the one natural selection, in the other > > SoF. > Since, in modern terms, but also in the more inclusive meaning that > Darwin meant, since he explicitly wrote about sexual selection, > "fitness" means "relative reproductive success", the two diagrams > would almost essentially be one diagram.

Darwin nor anybody else before 1910 said reproductive success.

> But if you mean "survival" > literally, then the exception of non-overlap would be those cases > where one's death increases one's reproductive fitness (e.g., the > black widow male).

No, since survival has no literal meaning ...... sigh.... this is getting boring don't you think?

> > Then say that the two symbol strings in 1870 was used by John > > Tyndall to convey the same concept, since they are only symbols , like > > a hammer is a symbol , they can be used to convey any arbitrary > > concept like a hammer can be used to fulfill any arbitrary function. > It is completely irrelevant to current usage whether Darwin was using > the terms to mean *exactly* the same idea or concept that Tyndall was > trying to convey.

It is relevant.

> Words change meanings and the ideas they represent > also can be modified.

You can't rewrite history and undo the fact that Napoleon shot at the sphinx with his cannon.

> Words are not initially generated by the gods.

Correct, only ideas was generated by God.

> They are a human invention meant to convey information to other > humans.

Like with Ethernet 802.2 from IEEE.

> Historical meaning is interesting to historians and other > people interested in how words originate and change in meaning over > time.

words have no meaning.

> But to convey meaning and ideas, one must be very precise and > explicit in clarifying those ideas to others.

Problem is with english where any word can be used in the pattern or design sense, even random can .

> That is why scientists > insist that the ideas that their words convey be *empirically* > demonstrable and why they must state such things as the probability > level they consider to be the boundary between "selection" and "non- > selection".

Pattern or design?

> > > I also discussed how one can then > > > empirically determine, *when* one has determined that there is > > > selection, whether or not that selection is "natural" rather than > > > "artificial". > > > Selection can be used in the pattern or design sense. What I mean by > > these concepts are laid out here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatternOrDesign

> When selection (natural or artificial) is identified to exist, it > necessarily produces a *pattern* different from the pattern produced > in the absence of selection.

Patterns can produce patterns such as a tornado selecting a house for destruction, pattern in pattern out.

> *Design* refers to those non-random *patterns* produced by a designer.

design has no meaning. what you mean with design differs from my YEC religious concept.

> So all *designs* are also *patterns*.

depends what you mean with design and pattern.

> Depending on whether you consider *random patterns* to be > *patterns*, then every collection of events or options represents > "pattern" of some sort, although single events cannot be so > described.

True, a pattern could be a designed pattern or random pattern or self-organizing pattern, it all depends through which semantic wormhole we are tunneling.

> OTOH, if you regard random patterns to represent the > absence of pattern, then you can have "natural" randomness and > "artificial" randomness.

pattern or design?

> Natural randomness would be cases where > there is no differentiation between choices in the absence of...

Natural randomness like "phenotypic plasticity" or "self actualizing morphological self-organization" can be used in only in: Patterns or designs. }}}

74 Edit

{{{ On Jul 4, 6:18 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 9:36 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [BOTTOM][TOP]onar aam > > >http://groups.google.fm/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/6d9... > > ".....Survival of the fittest is indeed a tautolgy. (not that there is > > anything wrong in that. All internally consistent conceptual > > frameworks are tautologies.) But the statement needn't have to be a > > tautology. Fitness can take on a definition which intrinsically > > separates it from survival. This is done by Ben Goertzel in his "The > > Evolving Mind". He uses fitness as in "fit like a glove". In other > > words, a social/ecological concept. The underlying assumption here is > > that ecologies are governed by emergent differentiation. In ecologies > > emergent interrelations are formed (e.g. different niches) and > > Goertzel's idea is that fitness means that these structures don't > > "crash" or intersect. Species will tend to avoid each others niches. > > Thus, his contention is that those species that fit into an ecological > > structure will tend to survive................" > > > "Survival of the fittest" on its own is logical validity - Tautology1. > > "Survival of the fittest and therefore my mommy had a long tail and > > scratched for fleas" is a rhetorical tautology3, the conclusion is a > > non-sequitur. There certainly is nothing wrong with "survival of the > > fittest" , "A or not-A" and "what happens, happens" as a logical > > validity. All internally consistent conceptual frameworks are based on > > type Tautology1. Logical fallacies are type Tautology3. > So, rather than actually try to think independently, you have suddenly > decided to avoid thought by using quotations from others. I have, in > some detail, described not only how "natural selection" is more > accurately defined than by the phrase "survival of the fittest", but > also showed, in some detail, how one can empirically determine whether > a comparison represents "selection" rather than "selective > neutrality".

Since the symbol "selection" has no meaning it can't be defined, only ideas can be defined. 1) The tornado selected the house on the left to destroy - pattern. 2) The man selected the house on the right to buy - design.

The symbol "selection" is no more a design or pattern than circle means round. It has no meaning, thus can't be defined or redefined. In the contexts used the symbol "selection" was used to convey either a pattern or design concept.

> [The very fact that one can distinguish between > "selection" and "non-selection" is evidence that "natural selection" > is not a tautology. It is an empirically distinguishable state; one > distinguished on some metric of *differential* reproductive success in > a comparison of two phenotypes in a specified environment.]

> And this > explains why the real concept of "natural selection" is in no possible > way a tautological concept.

Depends what you define as a natural selection, cite actual passages from OoS or some modern text. Note that you can't cite yourself as per the Wikipedia NOR (no original research) policy. There is nothing new under the sun, one can only interpret other people.

Draw a Venn diagram, place in the one natural selection, in the other SoF. Then say that the two symbol strings in 1870 was used by John Tyndall to convey the same concept, since they are only symbols , like a hammer is a symbol , they can be used to convey any arbitrary concept like a hammer can be used to fulfill any arbitrary function.

> I also discussed how one can then > empirically determine, *when* one has determined that there is > selection, whether or not that selection is "natural" rather than > "artificial".

Selection can be used in the pattern or design sense. What I mean by these concepts are laid out here: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatternOrDesign

}}}

61 Edit

{{{ Schutzenberger1: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

".....No one could possibly deny the general thesis that stability is a necessary condition for existence -- the real content of the doctrine of natural selection...."

This sentence shows us the depth of confusion we get with forming an oxymoron such as natural selection(decisions aren't natural). As far as can be deduced he basically said: Being in existence is a necessary for being in existence, then associated it with the symbol string NS.

Furthermore theories is something that must always be deniable or falsifiable. Sometimes I wonder if the ID crowed and Dawkins aren't in on some scam ..... to sell books for example....

}}}

60 Edit

{{{ On Jul 1, 1:05 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > That pretty much covers the distinction between "pattern" and > "design". *If* you consider randomly generated patterns to be > patterns, then 1), 2), 3), and possibly some of 4) represent patterns > and only some or all (depending on your requirement for conscious > knowledge for something to be "design") of 4) represents "design". > *If* you consider only *causal* patterns to be real patterns and > consider randomly generated patterns to be non-patterns and non- > design, then only 2) and possibly some (depending on your requirement > for conscious knowledge for something to be "design") of 4) represents > "pattern". Depending on your requirement for conscious knowledge for > something to be "design", only some or all of 4) represents "design". > To summarize, the word "design" can only be attributed to causal > patterns produced by a natural animate (intelligent?) agent. That is > my attempt to analyse *your* meaning of the word "design" and, as I > point out, you have not clarified whether the idea represented by your > definition requires evidence of conscious choice or includes > subconscious bias or instinctive activity by that agent.

All design has an intention behind it, a pattern doesn't. A bridge is a design because it symbolically represents an idea in the mind of a man. Definition of design: Anything, any pattern or structure or arrangement of matter that symbolically represents something other than itself.

Thus ice crystals are patterns because they only represent themselves. DNA is a design because it represents something other than itself, by some process we have a mapping: DNA -> Flying eagle implementing Kalman theory above Fuzzy control. A UAV represents abstract Kalman math in wood, metal and silicon atoms. An eagle represents an abstract Kalman filter in carbon atoms, therefore Jesus Christ upholds the eagle by his mind. Mind transcends matter like the mind of an engineer is greater than the bridge he built.

}}}

post 56 Edit

{{{ On Jun 30, 8:56 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > One of my hobbies is hunting down what people define as "natural > selection" , they usually engage in acrimonious debate about the "true > meaning" of natural selection, which is imagine a QM physics and > German goat herder going on about the true meaning of "Quark" - they > are to engaged in their own rhetorical verbosity to understand that > that NS represented different concepts to different people in > different historical ,social and political contexts: > Susu wrote: > > Natural selection is about organisms with higher fitness having a > higher probability of reproducing. > Wilkins1 wrote:

> Wilkins2:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html > Natural selection in modern science is a feedback process. > Wilkins replied: Selection is a sorting process driven by that or the lack of

Thus Wilkins has "natural selection" meaning a feedback and sorting process.

Is it a linear or non-linear feedback process? We don't know lets presume non-linear. As explained this means that the transfer function of the system changes as the input signal varies leading to unpredictable output. In UAV control theory they use an extended Kalman filter which dynamically compensates for such non-linear transfer functions.

An Eagle in a sense is a UAV using some sort of Kalman filter, how does Natural selection as a "feedback" and "sorting" process explain how the eagle chose a Kalman filter with rapid PID computation to minimize flight error above Fuzzy logic control as discussed in this paper Hong, Sung, “Fuzzy logic based closed-loop strapdown attitude system for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)”, Sensors and Actuators, 2003, 109-118

A UAV implements PID loops using silicon, an eagle does it using carbon atoms. In both the UAV and Eagle we are dealing with the symbolic representation of an idea in somebodies mind. Control engineers have very specific reasons for using DCM (directed cosine method) and Kalman filters over Fuzzy control, in what way did natural selection convince the Eagle to also implement Kalman instead of Fuzzy control?

Then we come to natural selection as a "sorting" process, did the eagle via the help of natural selection say to himself: "...I am going to choose Kalman above Fuzzy by sorting between the algorithms available to me...?"

I dug up another reference from Wilkins on natural selection:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/04/the_disconnect_between_biology.php I sometimes worry about the lack of attention philosophers pay to actual biology, settling instead for purely verbal arguments. I am travelling right now so I don't have time to carefully critique Jerry Fodor's latest attack on "Darwinism", but it seems that he is actually making the argument that natural selection is not selection because there's no agent doing selection, and it's just a metaphor and hence bad science. At the same time as this debate is occurring over on PhilPapers, this piece comes out showing that selection on trout size by bear predation is directional and hasn't yet settled on an equilibrium. Does Fodor really think that because he can't make an account by which intentionality of "selection for" can occur without agency that somehow selection is a myth? That's an excruciatingly bad argument, worthy of the worst of David Stove.

"....Does Fodor really think that because he can't make an account by which intentionality of "selection for" can occur without agency that somehow selection is a myth?...."

Let me try and see if I get this: Is he asking Fodor whether he thinks "feedback" and "sorting" is a myth?

Note that Darwin never said anything about feedback or sorting in OoS , but then again Wilkins isn't talking about the ideas Darwin had, he is just reusing the term which is imagine a QM physics professor uses "phlogiston theory" for a transition matrix.

}}}

post 40 Edit

rs1 - rs2

add:

Berlinski wrote: Ns as some sort of universal mechanism is just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics.

post 23 Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3c6713a1bb23d97e#

Darwin used 'natural preservation' and 'natural selection' in the same chance sense. There is no property called 'fitness' of a cow because a cow is already described by its attributes.

must read susu reply to pattern design distinction

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7428&hilit=selected+stochastic&start=650

Susu wrote: "....Selection has been described as a stochastic process for more than 70 years and stating that selection is random is nothing more and nothing less than agreeing with the basic work that went into the modern synthesis, especially that by the original 3 - Wright, Fisher and Haldane...."

{{{

> On Jun 28, 2:21 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: 

> > On Jun 25, 12:29 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: 


> > > On Jun 24, 3:02 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: 


> > > > On Jun 24, 6:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: 


> > > > >As I pointed out with your tornado example, if the 
> > > > > selection is done by nature in the absence of purposeful intent by a 
> > > > > natural animate agent (typically human, if one adds the restriction of 
> > > > > 'intelligence' of at least human levels), then that is *natural* 
> > > > > selection. 


> > > > With this I agree in so far as it was the same idea (chance) that 
> > > > Hodge 1874, Kingsley 1863, Burroughs and Osborn 1898 understood with 
> > > > *natural selection*. The "natural means of selection" was a chance, 
> > > > randomness, absolute empire of accident concept. 


> > > Not necessarily. Tornados may appear to be random events (although it 
> > > is quite clear that that is only a partial truth, since some areas are 
> > > more prone to destruction than others). But if this tornado destroyed 
> > > this house *purely* by chance, that would be non-selection or 
> > > randomness with respect to choice of house, not selection. And if a 
> > > choice or event is made at random rather than selectively, it is 
> > > *neither* a pattern nor a design. But if the house that was destroyed 
> > > was destroyed because (causally) it was on the higher ground and the 
> > > one that wasn't destroyed was in a valley that the tornado skipped 
> > > over, then the "selection" was not pure chance but was causally 
> > > influenced by geography. 


> > You are using "influenced" in the pattern sense right? 



> I notice that you 'chose' to snip out the rest of my response 
> (discussing the ways in which a whorehouse can be saved and a church 
> destroyed), which answered this question in detail. 


> But, yes, in order for something to be a "pattern" rather than 
> "randomness", there must first be evidence that there is a causality 
> to the observation. That is, there must first be a determination that 
> the observational result is not consistent with randomness. That is 
> exactly why the word "selection" is present in the phrase "natural 
> selection". Only after one determines that there is a *causal bias* 
> in the result can we further distinguish between "pattern" and 
> "design". 



But Darwin meant "preservation" and not selection, both words though 
were meant in the absolute empire of accident sense as understood by 
Kingsley  1863. 

1) The tornado selected the house on the left preserving the house on 
the right. 
2) The man selected the house on the left for demolition , preserving 
the house on the right. 


Pattern or desings - those are the only options in the YEC world view. 
The world view could be wrong, but this is a debate for later, label 
your words with subscripts , clarify the world view and then challenge 
it or we wind up with a 
Dembski, Berlinksi, Dawkins, Ham book writing and conference holding 
farce. 

}}}

Links Edit

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_08.html

What is it with tautologies Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d2d978d8cebb7a42/45d646fea00ea792#45d646fea00ea792 {{{ On Jul 17, 2:33 am, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 4:05 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: > > > > > On 7/16/10 5:21 PM, odin wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 1:14 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote: > > >> On 7/16/10 4:34 PM, odin wrote: > > > >>> Fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest? All those traits > > >>> come at a cost, and therefore do not represent universal fitness > > >>> optimums. If you get chased by cheetahs all day, being fast would be > > >>> great. But if you are a sessile critter, like a barnacle, then the > > >>> high costs associated with speed would tend to work against your > > >>> survival (how many calories a day would a barnicle need to zip around > > >>> at 50 mph all the time?). The fact that you don't already understand > > >>> this trade-off shows how stupid you are, but yes, as you said, the > > >>> smartest don't always survive, and you are living proof of that. > > > >> Another cheerleader flies off the handle;) > > > >> Where the examples Pagano mentioned too arcane for you to grasp? > > >> Is he an idiot because you have egg on your face because he explained > > >> what you could not understand? > > > > Earlier in this thread, Pango seems to be saying that vacuous > > > redundancies (i.e. tautology and circular reasoning) are somehow are > > > guaranteed to be untrue statements. But just because something might > > > not necessarily useful does not prove that it is not true. Is he > > > really that stupid that he cannot sort that out? > > > The problem with tautological logic is that when you use it in science, > > it acquires the connotation of an axiomatic principal. No matter which > > way you look at it, you're not actually proving anything, since with > > tautological logic, everything goes and no matter what the propositional > > values, the result is always true. > Correct. An "axiomatic principal" (it would be less wind-baggish to > just refer to it as an "axiom", "assumption" or "premise") does not > actually proving anything. That's OK. That's not its purpose.

Logical validity's are type tautology1, rhetorical tautology are type 3.

> It is > rather an initial assumption that may be true or false, which is then > used as the basis for further reasoning.

1=1 had better be true, because it can't be verified nor refuted.

> The assumptions are where you > start and the conclusions are where you try to get to. But you have > not addressed the issue here. Even if NS was a tautology, that in and > of its self does not confer truth or falsehood on the TOE.

NS isn't even a sentence, how could it be a tautology?

> NS is the premise (which you can accept or reject) and the TOE is the conclusion

No, NS could symbolically represent a premise, what is this premise?

> (which may be true or false). F=M*A could arguably be described as a > tautology. That does not change the fact that Newtonian physics is > based on it and we have landed a man on the moon based on it (not that > utility is a prerequisite for truth).

F=ma is not a tautology, force doesn't equal mass it equals the product of mass and acceleration.

> The bottom line is that whether > or not NS is a tautology that has no effect on its validity.

Which depends what on earth you mean with NS. In my other thread I used it to represent "preferential decision".

> It may be > true or it may be false, but tautologies are irrelevant to truth. Do > you get that?

No, you don't get it. Logical validity's (tautology1) is the basis for all we say and do, they are very relevant (1=1 had better be true).

> > I personally believe that this is at the crux of the reason that the ToE > > is of no or very limited use.

What theory exactly? > Limited use? Why would that matter? Are only useful facts true? Truth > is not related to utility. Do you not get that either? > Look, I agree that the TOE is not that useful. No big deal.

What precisely is not useful?

> But I > would have to say that all the evidence indicates that it is probably > true.

What is true? }}}



http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d2d978d8cebb7a42#

{{{ On Jul 21, 4:35 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> I personally believe that this is at the crux of the reason that the ToE > > >> is of no or very limited use. > > > > Limited use? > > > Yes, you read correctly. > > > Why would that matter? > > > I'm not discussing why it would matter, I'm of the opinion that it is > > useless. In this day and age, allocating funds to research that is > > useful is of paramount importance. > > > Are only useful facts true? > > > No, but given that the ToE is rife with tautologies, I am making a > > connection between this fact and the limited usefulness of the theory. > If the ToE were truly "rife with tautologies," then creationists > wouldn't be spending so much time trying to gather *evidence* against > it. (Their arguments about transitional forms, thermodynamics, > information theory, irrducible complexity, etc.) > No one bothers gathering evidence against a tautology since it's > vacuously true.

Exactly. ".... those that became common were favorable...." is a logical principle not a process. Wikipedia calls this validity a process. A process involves cause and effect. Validity's can't be verified nor refuted. > Those like "backspace" who claim that the ToE is a tautology should be > trying to sell that idea to Dembski and Behe, since they keep trying to > gather *evidence* against natural selection.

I have been trying to but see the love of money is the root of all evil. > If the tautology argument is right, then the ID proponents are wasting > their time. > And that would get them out of everybody's hair.

Sigh.... finally somebody sees the ligth: Dembski is refuting something you can't refute, he is wasting his time. }}}


Links Edit

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_08.html

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_selection_article#Wikipedia_selection_article Merge these two articles some time

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.