FANDOM


https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/talk.origins/jwMng7Ye0mM#!topic/talk.origins/jwMng7Ye0mM

https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/talk.origins/jwMng7Ye0mM#!topic/talk.origins/jwMng7Ye0mM

Does random mean non-directed
Showing 1-390 of 390 messages
Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/10/11 10:42 PM 	
Does random mean non-directed

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/10/11 11:08 PM 	
backspace wrote:
> Does random mean non-directed

In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
would say yes.

There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
have in mind?

Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
a tautology?

David


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/11/11 12:06 AM 	

    On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed

No.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/11/11 12:32 AM 	
On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    > backspace wrote:
    > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    > would say yes.
    >
    > There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    > have in mind?
    >
    > Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > a tautology?
    >
    > David

Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/11/11 12:59 AM 	
Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

> No.

It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
notion that things are random when uncorrelated.

Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
random.
-- 
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/11/11 1:05 AM 	

One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
have very different meanings depending on the context.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Robert Carnegie 	4/11/11 1:14 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 6:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed

Go to <http://dictionary.reference.com/> and don't waste everyone's
time.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/11/11 1:21 AM 	
On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > No.
    >
    > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > random.
    > --

> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net


    > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
materialist paradigm.

therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
in terms of life.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/11/11 1:31 AM 	

    backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    >> backspace wrote:
    >>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.
    >> So I would say yes.
    >>
    >> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did
    >> you have in mind?
    >>
    >> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this
    >> (apparently) unrelated thread to asserting in some way that
    >> 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology?
    >>
    >> David
    >
    > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

I notice that you have carefully witheld the context again - I feel a gotcha
coming on.

It could mean that depending on context but not necessarily.  Consider salt
crystals, these are nice neat cubes.  They don't come in any other form, not
random shapes.  Would we say that form was directed?  I wouldn't, to me it
more accurate to describe this as an ordered structure, "directed" has
connotations that don't fit so well with such things.

We can also play with "purpose".  If in some sense random means without
purpose does non-random mean purposeful?  Well then whose purpose does it
serve we must ask.   Do you want to run that loop in parallel and see if it
gets to the same place as the first?


David

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/11/11 1:35 AM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:

> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >> No.
    >
    > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.

Not too long ago you had a tweet on you blog that led me to Theodore
Brown's book _Making Truth:  Metaphor In Science_.  Which should probably
tell you that you should be more responsible about what you tweet, but be
that as it may....  This will become important in a moment.

    "a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"

That's not quite right.  I think it's more correct to say that mutations
are independent of fitness.  Correlation would involve an x and y axis,
and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what you'd put on the
other.

However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor.  We can use other
metaphors as well:  "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
hand.  ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in the
air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as metaphors
as well.)

Circling back to Backspace's question:  I find both "random" and "non-
directed" to be of limited use as metaphors in evolutionary algorithms.  
The generation of mutations are wholly deterministic and I've taken great
care in directing that they will be way (thus non-random and directed),
but mutations are still independent of fitness.  It's also trivial to
generate algorithms where mutation generation really is random and/or
there's no direction --- so long as mutations are independent of fitness,
I'm still working with evolution.

Thus:  in evolutionary algorithms, OR among readers lacking good will,
random is not the same as undirected.


     
    > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > random.

Yep.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/11/11 1:40 AM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:

<snip>

    > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > paradigm.

I do this frequently, in fact more often than not.  It's not hard.  

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bill 	4/11/11 1:55 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 3:21 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > > No.
    >
    > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > random.

    > > --
    > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

> of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> materialist paradigm.


    .
    >
    > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > in terms of life.

Not at all. It's impressive how much you can do with fuzzy, just "good
enough" definitions. Sometimes straining too hard for precise
definitions accomplishes nothing, causes confusion, and wastes time.
[Wonder why that thought popped into my head just now.]


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/11/11 2:11 AM 	

    On 11/04/2011 06:42, backspace wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed
    >

Not necessarily, but sometimes

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/11/11 2:11 AM 	
On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > >> No.
    >
    > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > random.
    >

> Yep.

back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.

Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such
as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
think as a  proxy for spontaneous generation.

See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology  for correct spelling
and documented references of what i just wrote.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/11/11 2:13 AM 	
Not necessarily, but sometimes

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/11/11 2:23 AM 	
Nonsense, you simply bootstrap, starting with a tentative idea that you
later refine.  If what you said were true, we would
never be able to find out new things, since the process of fining out
new things changes the meaning of what we originally looked at. (cf
"Paradox of analysis")

So in reality, we typically start with an ostensive definition, which
does the job sufficiently well: This sort of things <points at trees,
fish, bird> have something in common that these things <points at rocks,
skeleton, car> don't have.  Let's call this "life". Now let's study it
and see if we can find some good diagnostic rules first, and then maybe
a definition later.
St Augustine, in  De Magistro, 4, had pretty much figured that out.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 3:11 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 9:21 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > > No.
    >
    > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > random.
    > > --
    > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
    > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
    > materialist paradigm.
    >
    > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > in terms of life.

we are trying to understand things that are basically unknown.  In
this case, we cannot define then to study it, for we don't know what
it is.
But sometimes we had a figuration of what a thing is, so we define the
damn thing in a provisional mode.  We are pending farther knowledge to
be to see if our present idea of the thing is sound or not.  We need
time for that.  We have not a "holybook" that tell us all about life
and the universe. Those of the holybook are other people.
Geode
.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 3:15 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 9:31 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    > backspace wrote:

    > > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    > >> backspace wrote:
    > >>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > >> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.
    > >> So I would say yes.
    >
    > >> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did
    > >> you have in mind?
    >
    > >> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this
    > >> (apparently) unrelated thread to asserting in some way that
    > >> 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology?
    >
    > >> David
    >
    > > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >

    > I notice that you have carefully witheld the context again - I feel a gotcha
    > coming on.
    >
    > It could mean that depending on context but not necessarily.  Consider salt
    > crystals, these are nice neat cubes.  They don't come in any other form, not
    > random shapes.  Would we say that form was directed?  I wouldn't, to me it
    > more accurate to describe this as an ordered structure, "directed" has
    > connotations that don't fit so well with such things.
    >
    > We can also play with "purpose".  If in some sense random means without
    > purpose does non-random mean purposeful?  Well then whose purpose does it
    > serve we must ask.   Do you want to run that loop in parallel and see if it
    > gets to the same place as the first?
    >
    > David

if next month a giant meteorite hits the earth and killed us all, was
this a random event, or the hit was directed by god himself, on
purpose, because he was not happy with our praises of his greatness?
perhaps he is not happy with our out of tune voices singing his
praises.
Geode
.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 3:21 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >

    > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > paradigm.
    >

    > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not.  It's not hard.  

this definitions are tentative.  If that thing is so and so, then it
would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
to define.  It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
flying or suddenly went down in several seconds.  We need to observe
the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause.  But we would
never be totally sure of our conclusion.
Geode
.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 3:23 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 9:55 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 3:21 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >

> > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > > > No.
    >
    > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > random.
    > > > --
    > > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

> > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > materialist paradigm.


    > .
    >
    > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > > in terms of life.
    >

    > Not at all. It's impressive how much you can do with fuzzy, just "good
    > enough" definitions. Sometimes straining too hard for precise
    > definitions accomplishes nothing, causes confusion, and wastes time.
    > [Wonder why that thought popped into my head just now.]

even it is very difficult to have a certitude. But many of us have a
few of them, for we have to believe something basic. At least the most
banal questions, of life and science.
Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kleuskes & Moos 	4/11/11 3:30 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 9:32 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >

    > > backspace wrote:
    > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    > > would say yes.
    >
    > > There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    > > have in mind?
    >
    > > Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > a tautology?
    >
    > > David
    >
    > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

A cow is not a goat, but not everything that is not a goat is
therefore a cow. Non-random things can still be non-directed.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 3:32 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 10:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >

    > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > >> No.
    >
    > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > random.
    >

    > > Yep.
    >
    > back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
    > internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
    > this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
    > out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
    > was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
    > became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
    > Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
    >
    > Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
    > is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such
    > as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
    > think as a  proxy for spontaneous generation.
    >

> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for correct spelling


    > and documented references of what i just wrote.

this would not be a problem if we accept the inherent difficulties to
have a certitude.
if we believe blindly the first crap that some scientist present, we
are going to have a problem in the future. But if we are modest and
say, "it looks like... that and that happens this way or that way."
Then, all that believers in god could throw at our face is our lack of
modesty and some of us look like full of certitudes.
if we become modest, and accept that most of our  knowledge is
provisional theists are disarmed.
Then, you will be disarmed, dear backspace.
Then, as some of us here, putative scientists, are hungry of
certitudes, you can prove us that god exist.  Some of us feel hunger
of certitudes.  Not my case. I do not believe but the most banal
questions of everyday life, and the most banal questions of science.
Geode
.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/11/11 3:32 AM 	

True to some extent. Which is why the materialist paradigm accepts
imperfect, limited or even ad-hoc definitions. Because most things in
the world can't be defined perfectly.

    >
    > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > in terms of life.
    >

There are many different definitions of life depending on the context of
study, and the borders are fuzzy but this isn't a problem for studying
things well within the borders.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/11/11 3:38 AM 	

Love, cat or random have no single, perfect definition. They have plenty
of meaning, or language wouldn't work. Some of those also have a
specific scientific definition that gives a context for their study,
although it might not square with all their possible common-sense meanings.

    , it
    > is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such
    > as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
    > think as a  proxy for spontaneous generation.
    >
    > See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology  for correct spelling
    > and documented references of what i just wrote.
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Friar Broccoli 	4/11/11 4:59 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > <snip>
    >

    > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > paradigm.
    >

    > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not.  It's not hard.  

 .

    > this definitions are tentative.  If that thing is so and so, then it
    > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
    > to define.  It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
    > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds.  We need to observe
    > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause.  But we would
    > never be totally sure of our conclusion.

If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
the study is complete?

I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
meaningfully defined.  If clear definitions are not needed is this a
valid criticism?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/11/11 5:21 AM 	
backspace wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Does random mean non-directed
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
>> means a
>> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
>> general
>> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>>
>> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
>> hearer
>> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
>> random.
>> --
>> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
>> Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a
>> philosophre,
>> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> materialist paradigm.
>
> therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> in terms of life.

Absolute bollocks.  In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more.  Tight
definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
the way or never arrive at all.

You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
idea about how science is actually done.  It is not done by playing word
games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
understanding is possible.

David

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/11/11 5:25 AM 	
backspace wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    >>> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >>>> No.
    >>
    >>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    >>> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
    >>> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>

>> Not too long ago you had a tweet on you blog that led me to Theodore
>> Brown's book _Making Truth: Metaphor In Science_. Which should
>> probably tell you that you should be more responsible about what you
>> tweet, but be that as it may.... This will become important in a
>> moment.


    >>
    >> "a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"
    >>

>> That's not quite right. I think it's more correct to say that
>> mutations are independent of fitness. Correlation would involve an x
>> and y axis, and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what
>> you'd put on the other.
>>
>> However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
>> fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor. We can use other
>> metaphors as well: "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
>> hand. ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in
>> the air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as
>> metaphors as well.)
>>
>> Circling back to Backspace's question: I find both "random" and "non-
>> directed" to be of limited use as metaphors in evolutionary
>> algorithms. The generation of mutations are wholly deterministic and
>> I've taken great care in directing that they will be way (thus
>> non-random and directed), but mutations are still independent of
>> fitness. It's also trivial to generate algorithms where mutation
>> generation really is random and/or there's no direction --- so long
>> as mutations are independent of fitness, I'm still working with
>> evolution.
>>
>> Thus: in evolutionary algorithms, OR among readers lacking good will,
>> random is not the same as undirected.


    >>
    >>> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    >>> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
    >>> to say, random.
    >>

>> Yep.
>
> back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
> internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
> this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
> out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
> was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
> became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
> Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
>
> Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
> is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such
> as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
> think as a  proxy for spontaneous generation.
>
> See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology  for correct spelling
> and documented references of what i just wrote.

So it took just three iterations in a bit over three hours for you to get to
using the T word.  Can I have my prize now?

David


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Walter Bushell 	4/11/11 5:57 AM 	
In article <1jzkmh8.zhrcf...@wilkins.id.au>,


     jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

    > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > random.

And crap shoots frequently lead to fecesous reasoning.

-- 
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/11/11 6:23 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 2:21 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    > backspace wrote:

    > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    > >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > >>> No.
    >

    > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    > >> means a
    > >> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
    > >> general
    > >> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    > >> hearer
    > >> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > >> random.

    > >> --
    > >> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of

> >> Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.netBut al be that he was a


    > >> philosophre,
    > >> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
    > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
    > > materialist paradigm.
    >
    > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > > in terms of life.
    >
    > Absolute bollocks.  In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
    > on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
    > name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more.  Tight
    > definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
    > the way or never arrive at all.
    >
    > You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
    > idea about how science is actually done.  It is not done by playing word
    > games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
    > observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
    > understanding is possible.
    >
    > David

wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in
a circle, assuming that life will be materialistic.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Erwin Moller 	4/11/11 6:22 AM 	

    On 4/11/2011 7:42 AM, backspace wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed
    >

A guy like you, who wants to disprove evolution by means of semantics,
should at least use a question mark behind your questions.


Regards,
Erwin Moller


-- 
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/11/11 6:31 AM 	
On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    > > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > > >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > > >> No.
    >
    > > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > > random.
    >

    > > > Yep.
    >
    > > back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
    > > internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
    > > this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
    > > out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
    > > was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
    > > became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
    > > Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
    >
    > > Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
    > > is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such
    > > as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
    > > think as a  proxy for spontaneous generation.
    >

> > Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for correct spelling


    > > and documented references of what i just wrote.
    >

> this would not be a problem if we accept the inherent difficulties to
> have a certitude.
> if we believe blindly the first crap that some scientist present, we
> are going to have a problem in the future. But if we are modest and
> say, "it looks like... that and that happens this way or that way."
> Then, all that believers in god could throw at our face is our lack of
> modesty and some of us look like full of certitudes.
> if we become modest, and accept that most of our  knowledge is
> provisional theists are disarmed.

You would stop begging the question and realize what it is that you
are assuming. Godel's theorem states that we will
always have to assume something we cannot prove.


> Then, as some of us here, putative scientists, are hungry of
> certitudes, you can prove us that god exist.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/11/11 6:32 AM 	
On Apr 11, 2:25 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    > So it took just three iterations in a bit over three hours for you to get to
    > using the T word.  Can I have my prize now?
    >
    > David

well at least I did not start on the tautology issue from the first
post, you have to give me some credit :)

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Will in New Haven 	4/11/11 7:11 AM 	
On Apr 11, 3:32 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > > backspace wrote:

> > > Does random mean non-directed
>
> > In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
> > would say yes.
>
> > There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
> > have in mind?
>
> > Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
> > unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
> > a tautology?
>
> > David
>
> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

It can mean directed or it can mean predetermined in some other way.
If the beginning state of a situation is given then the laws of
physics can sometimes tell us what the result will be without any
direction being given.

--
Will in New Haven

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/11/11 7:10 AM 	

    On Apr 10, 11:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed

No, random means:  "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or
objective" ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/random)  "Non-directed"
means without direction.   Something non directed can be random, but
not everything non directed is random.    Natural processes are non
directed, but aren't necessarily random.


DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/11/11 7:14 AM 	
On Apr 11, 7:23 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 11, 2:21 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > backspace wrote:

    > > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    > > >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > >>> No.
    >
    > > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    > > >> means a
    > > >> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
    > > >> general
    > > >> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    > > >> hearer
    > > >> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > >> random.

    > > >> --
    > > >> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of

> > >> Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.netButal be that he was a


    > > >> philosophre,
    > > >> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
    > > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
    > > > materialist paradigm.
    >
    > > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > > > in terms of life.
    >
    > > Absolute bollocks.  In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
    > > on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
    > > name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more.  Tight
    > > definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
    > > the way or never arrive at all.
    >
    > > You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
    > > idea about how science is actually done.  It is not done by playing word
    > > games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
    > > observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
    > > understanding is possible.
    >
    > > David
    >
    > wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in

> a circle, assuming that life will be materialistic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where did Dr. Wilkins do anything of the sort?   Life is a natural
process, so it must involve the material.  If there is a non material
element to life, that is beyond the ability of science to
determine.


DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	jillery 	4/11/11 7:18 AM 	
On Apr 11, 9:31 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 10:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    > > > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > > > >> No.
    >
    > > > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > > > random.
    >

    > > > > Yep.
    >
    > > > back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
    > > > internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
    > > > this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
    > > > out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
    > > > was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
    > > > became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
    > > > Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
    >
    > > > Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
    > > > is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such
    > > > as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
    > > > think as a proxy for spontaneous generation.
    >

> > > Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTologyfor correct spelling


    > > > and documented references of what i just wrote.
    >

    > > this would not be a problem if we accept the inherent difficulties to
    > > have a certitude.
    > > if we believe blindly the first crap that some scientist present, we
    > > are going to have a problem in the future. But if we are modest and
    > > say, "it looks like... that and that happens this way or that way."
    > > Then, all that believers in god could throw at our face is our lack of
    > > modesty and some of us look like full of certitudes.
    > > if we become modest, and accept that most of our knowledge is
    > > provisional theists are disarmed.
    >
    > You would stop begging the question and realize what it is that you
    > are assuming. Godel's theorem states that we will
    > always have to assume something we cannot prove.


Ah, so the trick is to minimize the use of assumptions,  and to
recognize assumptions and the limits they place on precise
conclusions.

Easy enough to say, hard enough to do.


    > > Then, as some of us here, putative scientists, are hungry of
    > > certitudes, you can prove us that god exist.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/11/11 9:15 AM 	

    backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >Does random mean non-directed

It depends on what one means by "directed".  I can produce a
totally random walk that will start in one predefined spot
and end in another.  But that is not what is normally meant
by "random".

-- 
   --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/11/11 9:17 AM 	
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    >> backspace wrote:
    >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    >> would say yes.
    >>
    >> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    >> have in mind?
    >>
    >> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >> a tautology?
    >>
    >> David

    >Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

No.

What are you trying to accomplish here.  Does "random" mean
"blue" to you.  If you answer no, I will ask if "random" means
"red" or "Toyota" or whatever?

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/11/11 9:30 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 3:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > No.
    >
    > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > random.

    > --
    > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

> But al be that he was a philosophre,


    > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

As John so clearly points out, the way that "randomness" is
empirically verified in the case of evolution is by the lack of
correlation between the two variables, "relative fitness of a
phenotype" and "mutation rate to that phenotype".  To date, nearly all
such studies have demonstrated a lack of correlation.  There have been
a few claims of non-randomness in nature between "relative fitness"
and "mutation rate to a phenotype", but in nearly all these cases
studied, the change has been due to a cryptic change in "mutation
rate" rather than a change in significant correlation between the two
variables.  However, it is now possible for *humans* to produce
specific directed mutations and introduce them into organisms (at a
specific rate determined by natural mechanisms for such introduction)
that they think might affect fitness (positively or negatively).  That
would be introducing mutation with a teleological intent in the mind
of the human designer.  But such teleological intent is not the case
for mutation in nature.  Mutations in the absence of humans have a
"cause" (chemical mutagenesis) but not a "director" (an agent working
for a teleological end goal).

"Selection", OTOH, occurs, by definition, when there is non-randomness
(a significant causal difference) between two phenotypes in a
specified environment (or a randomized set of environments) on a
relevant measurable metric of reproductive success.  Specifically,
selection exists when one of the two phenotypic variables examined has
a significantly detectably higher reproductive success relative to the
other in the specified or randomized environment(s).  "Non-selection"
is, by definition, when there is no significant difference between the
two phenotypic variables on a relevant measurable metric of
reproductive success.

"Directed or non-directed" may be somewhat useful in describing
certain human-designed gene changes, but is useless in describing non-
human designed gene changes.  Mutations do have a "cause".  After all,
one can change the *rate* at which particular mutational types (say a
G->A transition) occur by adding or removing mutagens to the
environment (or by mutating genes involved in DNA repair).  But that
doesn't mean the mutations are "directed" by the blind, unintelligent
mutagen for some causal end purpose (teleological purpose).

And selection, when it occurs, also has a "cause".  But whether that
"cause" is due to a blind, unintelligent, environmental factor or due
to human (or other organism) intervention and intention is irrelevant
to whether or not "selection" has occurred.

You need to tell us how you propose to distinguish empirically between
"causally directed relationship" and "teleologically directed causal
relationship".  The two are not identical.  H2O has a causally
directed relationship with O2 and H2, but there is no obvious
"teleologic intent" behind that relationship.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/11/11 9:37 AM 	
On Apr 11, 12:59 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > > <snip>


    >
    > > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > > paradigm.
    >

> > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
>
>  .
>
> > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
> > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
> > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
> > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
> > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
> > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
>
> If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
> like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
> the study is complete?


That would be too strong, for me at least. You don;t need to end up
with a clear definition, but what you want is some interesting
progress. Finding some diagnostic criteria that make it possible for
most people, most of the  time to agree whether or not a given X falls
under the term seems like a good thing, e.g., but is not a definition
in the traditional sense.
>
> I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
> meaningfully defined.  If clear definitions are not needed is this a
> valid criticism?


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mitchell Coffey 	4/11/11 9:46 AM 	

    On 4/11/2011 1:42 AM, backspace wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed
    >

Is that "non-" in the pattern or design sense?

Mitchell Coffey

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Steven L. 	4/11/11 9:52 AM 	
"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb463031-1ee3-4025-97dd-2fe81321bffc@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

> Does random mean non-directed

Clearly not.

When you're throwing a pair of dice, the dice are moving through the air
and landing on the table according to the laws of physics.  (The law of
gravity keeps those dice falling to the table rather than levitating up
to the sky.)  And you, a human being, are throwing the dice by conscious
volition.

But attempting to predict the numbers on the dice that will turn up
involves so many variables and so many opportunities for nonlinear
outcomes, that you might as well give up and say that statistically, the
more times you do this, the more often a seven will come up as opposed
to a two or a twelve.

-- Steven L.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 10:00 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 12:59 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > <snip>
    >
    > > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > > paradigm.
    >
    > > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
    >
    >  .
    >
    > > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
    > > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
    > > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
    > > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
    > > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
    > > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
    >
    > If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
    > like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
    > the study is complete?
    >

    > I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
    > meaningfully defined.  If clear definitions are not needed is this a
    > valid criticism?

well, I do not know what IC you are talking about. I was last week
watching some documentaries about great mathematicians and... well,
even in Maths there are some incertitudes.
A great mathematician, I don't remember now his name, wrote a book
trying to prove that 2+2=4  It was not an easy task and he was even a
little unsure of his work.

We can ask for clear definitions when the ideas about a set of data
are contradictory or give us way to confusion.  To have a concrete
discussion we need a definition.  If we lack a definition there is not
a way to understand what are we arguing about.  Then, a definition is
a starting point to engage in an argument. So, a definition no needs
to be the best, or the only definition possible.  But we need it to
starting thinking, or reasoning about.  A definition is only valid on
certain conditions to start thinking. If you change the definition of
a concept the path of the argument has to change also.
  Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 10:05 AM 	
On Apr 11, 2:23 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:21 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    >
    >
    >
    > > backspace wrote:
    > > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> > >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > > >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > >>> No.
    >
    > > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    > > >> means a
    > > >> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
    > > >> general
    > > >> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    > > >> hearer
    > > >> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > >> random.
    > > >> --
    > > >> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of

> > >> Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.netButal be that he was a


    > > >> philosophre,
    > > >> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

    > > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

> > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > > materialist paradigm.
>


    > > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > > > in terms of life.
    >
    > > Absolute bollocks.  In many cases study begins by saying, something is going
    > > on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I don't even have a
    > > name for it let alone a tight definition but I must find out more.  Tight
    > > definitions may be left for the end of the process, may be re-worked along
    > > the way or never arrive at all.
    >
    > > You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you have no
    > > idea about how science is actually done.  It is not done by playing word
    > > games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to comprehend what we
    > > observe and that may include using words as fuzzy place holders until better
    > > understanding is possible.
    >
    > > David
    >
    > wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in
    > a circle, assuming that life will be materialistic.

he is assuming in materialistic terms, like me, because we do not have
any experience on things immaterial.

can you show us some examples of things immaterial for us to
consider?  Please, show us some samples.
Geode
.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John Stockwell 	4/11/11 10:11 AM 	

    On Apr 10, 11:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed

"Random" means following a probability distribution. "Radomness" is a
model of behaviors of outcomes of processes.

"Directed or non directed" refer to particular processes.

There is no general way of inferring a process of origin of an outcome
from the
outcomes. It has to be done on a case by case basis. Nor is there a
guarantee
that one can determine the process from the outcomes.

-John

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John Stockwell 	4/11/11 10:12 AM 	
On Apr 11, 1:32 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    >
    > > backspace wrote:
    > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    > > would say yes.
    >
    > > There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    > > have in mind?
    >
    > > Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > a tautology?
    >
    > > David
    >
    > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

No. Non-random means that  the outcomes are regular, and such
regularity makes
the outcomes predictable by more than a statistical law.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 10:18 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 2:31 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 10:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    > > > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > > > >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > > > >> No.
    >
    > > > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > > > random.
    >

    > > Then, as some of us here, putative scientists, are hungry of
    > > certitudes, you can prove us that god exist.
    >
    >

of course, we are always assuming things.  Even when we have cow
before our eyes, we are assuming this animal is a cow.  Thinking and
reasoning is all about assumptions, not certitudes.  When we talk
about number pi, we are assuming all the operations we had done to
establish the value of pi, were correct.  Even, we are assuming that
other people before us were checking on the number pi, and we assume
this number is right.  The same with many other questions, like the
distance from the earth to the sun, or the mass of Jupiter.  Many of
this numbers we had not the time to check it by ourselves, for we
assume they are right, and had been verified my many competent
mathematicians and astronomers.

Then in science, we have not dogmas.  We have not certitudes, we have
only assumptions.  Some look more nice than others. But they are only
assumptions.  But we work a little bit as if they were unshakable
truths. We are working our maths as they were a solid building.  But
we have to take care, for in sudden quirk, our minds do something
wrong and we are full of shit. This is not very common, but it occurs
from time to time.

Then, if you are trying to smear shit on our faces, for being in favor
of "scientific assumptions", you should check your own mind.  You
should try to examine what sort of crap your mind is full of.
  Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/11/11 10:21 AM 	

    On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:00:08 -0700 (PDT), Geode
    <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > I was last week
    >watching some documentaries about great mathematicians and... well,
    >even in Maths there are some incertitudes.
    >A great mathematician, I don't remember now his name, wrote a book
    >trying to prove that 2+2=4  It was not an easy task and he was even a
    >little unsure of his work.

Was this Russel trying  to define "integer"?

The mathematician Kronecker famously said "God created the integers;
all the rest is the work of man."  Peano's postulates provided a basis
for the integers based on "zero" and "next integer".  However, a true
consistent definition based on axiomatic set theory (so-called "ZFC")
was tricky.

Once you formally define the integers, then 2+2 = 4 is quite trivial.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 10:26 AM 	
Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/11/11 10:25 AM 	

    On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed

Words don't have meaning.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Berger 	4/11/11 10:37 AM 	
In article <inv9im$329$5...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...


    >
    >backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    >>> backspace wrote:
    >>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>

    >>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    >>> would say yes.
    >>>
    >>> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    >>> have in mind?
    >>>
    >>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >>> a tautology?
    >>>
    >>> David
    >
    >>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    >No.
    >

    >What are you trying to accomplish here.  Does "random" mean
    >"blue" to you.  If you answer no, I will ask if "random" means
    >"red" or "Toyota" or whatever?

Well, Toyota maybe; but definitely not red.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 10:41 AM 	

I agree with you, for I am not a deep mathematician to understand what
problems he had when he wrote this book about proving 2+2=4

Then, to us common mortals, we do not see what problems could have a
superior mind to prove this.  I cannot prove in a formal way that
2+2=4.  To me it looks looks like a trivial certitude.  And like most
certitudes it is not easy to prove.  Banal certitudes cannot be
prove.  You are before a cow, and it is pretty obvious it is cow, but
you cannot prove it.  Only appealing to common sense it can be proved.
But not in a philosophical way.  In a trial, the jury declares
unanimously that the accused is guilty.  This is the result of the
common sense, but it cannot be proved in a formal way.  It looks like
the accused is guilty, but we cannot never be totally sure of that.
Geode
.

Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/11/11 10:55 AM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:35:44 GMT, Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip to ignore backspace's totally inane babbling>

    >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    >

>> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >>
    >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>

    >>> No.
    >>
    >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    >> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    >> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    >Not too long ago you had a tweet on you blog that led me to Theodore
    >Brown's book _Making Truth:  Metaphor In Science_.  Which should probably
    >tell you that you should be more responsible about what you tweet, but be
    >that as it may....  This will become important in a moment.
    >
    >"a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"
    >
    >That's not quite right.  I think it's more correct to say that mutations
    >are independent of fitness.  Correlation would involve an x and y axis,
    >and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what you'd put on the
    >other.
    >
    >However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
    >fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor.  We can use other
    >metaphors as well:  "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
    >hand.  ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in the
    >air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as metaphors
    >as well.)

You seem fixated on the Pearson product-moment correlation notion.
Correlation in probability theory has a very technical definition: two
variables are correlated if and only if their covariance is not zero.

Still,  Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
correlation between fitness and mutation.

First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
+1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".

Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a
reasonable estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most
definitely correlated.  Correlation indicates a connection, not the
direction of causal relationship.  It is not directional.

Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation.  However the
fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
that mutation will occur.  That is the "random" part.  That is quite
different from "lack of correlatation."

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/11/11 10:58 AM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Geode
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
we still don't really know.  But we can make a pretty good guess. That
is the way life works (whatever "life" is)!

By the way, juries handle that with the notion of "beyond reasonable
doubt."

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 11:56 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 6:21 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:00:08 -0700 (PDT), Geode
    >

    > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > I was last week
    > >watching some documentaries about great mathematicians and... well,
    > >even in Maths there are some incertitudes.
    > >A great mathematician, I don't remember now his name, wrote a book
    > >trying to prove that 2+2=4  It was not an easy task and he was even a
    > >little unsure of his work.
    >
    > Was this Russel trying  to define "integer"?
    >
    > The mathematician Kronecker famously said "God created the integers;
    > all the rest is the work of man."  Peano's postulates provided a basis
    > for the integers based on "zero" and "next integer".  However, a true
    > consistent definition based on axiomatic set theory (so-called "ZFC")
    > was tricky.
    >
    > Once you formally define the integers, then 2+2 = 4 is quite trivial.

  it think it was Godel who wrote it. He worked on the incompleteness
theory.

i got the videos form youtube. BBC presented several mathematicians,
like Kantor, Boltzmann, Godel, Turing, on the name BBC Dangerous
Knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90

You can watch them they are very interesting
Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John Bode 	4/11/11 1:31 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 12:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed

IMO, the two concepts are largely orthogonal to each other.

I can think processes that are both directed and random at the same
time.  For one example, take some H2 and O2 and add some activation
energy; you'll get H2O and a bunch of heat.  It's directed in the
sense that it falls out of the properties of hydrogen and oxygen;
you're always going to get the same result in the same way.  It's
random in the sense that any particular combination of H and O atoms
into H2O is just as likely as any other.

Avalanches are another example; gravity determines that the snow will
fall down the hill, but the exact path of each individual snowball is
random.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/11/11 1:46 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 4:59 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > <snip>
    >

    > > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > > paradigm.
    >

    > > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
    >
    >  .
    >
    > > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
    > > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
    > > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
    > > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
    > > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
    > > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
    >
    > If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
    > like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
    > the study is complete?
    >
    > I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
    > meaningfully defined.  If clear definitions are not needed is this a
    > valid criticism?

But surely for the study of the single plane crash terms would be
defined precisely, as appropriate for clear understanding?

I would be satisfied if the IC people could simply *describe IC well
enough that independent researchers could look for it in a particular
object (e.g. fossil) or a process (e.g. rain). If they could describe
it in such a way that it could actually be measured also, that would
be swell. But they never do :(

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/11/11 1:43 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 1:21 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > > No.
    >
    > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > random.

    > > --
    > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

> > But al be that he was a philosophre,


    > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

> of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> materialist paradigm.
>

How else would it be defined, except in the materialist paradigm?

I assume you eman something like this:
materialist = " someone who thinks that nothing exists but physical
matter"
paradigm =  "a typical example or model of something"

    > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > in terms of life.

Who said life cannot be defined? Or by "you", do you mean Garamond
Lethe alone?

The concept of "life" has fuzzy boundaries because the boundary of
actual living things is fuzzy. That doesn't mean the concept is
confused, nor that it implies the intervention of supernatural ideas
is helpful.

It is not universally obvious where the precise boundaries of "tall"
is, yet a universal definition is neither complicated nor
contentious.  And for a particular conversation two people may define
it precisely with no problems.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/11/11 2:03 PM 	
On Apr 11, 2:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > >> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > >> No.
    >
    > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > Not too long ago you had a tweet on you blog that led me to Theodore
    > > Brown's book _Making Truth:  Metaphor In Science_.  Which should probably
    > > tell you that you should be more responsible about what you tweet, but be
    > > that as it may....  This will become important in a moment.
    >
    > > "a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"
    >
    > > That's not quite right.  I think it's more correct to say that mutations
    > > are independent of fitness.  Correlation would involve an x and y axis,
    > > and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what you'd put on the
    > > other.
    >
    > > However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
    > > fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor.  We can use other
    > > metaphors as well:  "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
    > > hand.  ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in the
    > > air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as metaphors
    > > as well.)
    >

    > > Circling back to Backspace's question:  I find both "random" and "non-
    > > directed" to be of limited use as metaphors in evolutionary algorithms.  
    > > The generation of mutations are wholly deterministic and I've taken great
    > > care in directing that they will be way (thus non-random and directed),
    > > but mutations are still independent of fitness.  It's also trivial to
    > > generate algorithms where mutation generation really is random and/or
    > > there's no direction --- so long as mutations are independent of fitness,
    > > I'm still working with evolution.
    >
    > > Thus:  in evolutionary algorithms, OR among readers lacking good will,
    > > random is not the same as undirected.
    >

    > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > random.
    >

    > > Yep.
    >
    > back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
    > internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
    > this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
    > out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This concept
    > was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of Necessity
    > became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn made this
    > Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.

Yes... ideas go back a hundred thousand years or more, back to the
beginnings of language. Nothing we know or imagine is produced from
scratch; we all are beneficiaries of culture.

    >
    > Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it
    > is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge

What else would have meaning but for symbols? Words are the most
useful in most contexts.

    > context such
    > as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness' first I
    > think as a  proxy for spontaneous generation.

Perhaps. "Scene" was originally a Greek word for tent.  Words change
over time.

>
> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for correct spelling


    > and documented references of what i just wrote.

Looks like pretty much the same silliness you had there before.
Darwin's ideas don't need a wikipedia article to substantiate them.
Also, he is obsolete now. He is not the founder of a religious cult;
he was the scientist who came up with a theory that established a new
science.

Are you ever going to discuss the evidence, or will you simply
continue to claim that your sentences don't really mean anything?

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/11/11 2:06 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 10:25 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > Words don't have meaning.

I would take backspace at his word when he says words have no meaning,
but if his word means nothing, then I'm rather at a loss...

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 2:13 PM 	
On Apr 11, 6:58 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Geode
>
>
>
> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    > >r norman wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:00:08 -0700 (PDT), Geode
    > >> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >> > I was last week
    > >> >watching some documentaries about great mathematicians and... well,
    > >> >even in Maths there are some incertitudes.
    > >> >A great mathematician, I don't remember now his name, wrote a book
    > >> >trying to prove that 2+2=4  It was not an easy task and he was even a
    > >> >little unsure of his work.
    >
    > >> Was this Russel trying  to define "integer"?
    >
    > >> The mathematician Kronecker famously said "God created the integers;
    > >> all the rest is the work of man."  Peano's postulates provided a basis
    > >> for the integers based on "zero" and "next integer".  However, a true
    > >> consistent definition based on axiomatic set theory (so-called "ZFC")
    > >> was tricky.
    >
    > >> Once you formally define the integers, then 2+2 = 4 is quite trivial.
    >

    > >I agree with you, for I am not a deep mathematician to understand what
    > >problems he had when he wrote this book about proving 2+2=4
    >
    > >Then, to us common mortals, we do not see what problems could have a
    > >superior mind to prove this.  I cannot prove in a formal way that
    > >2+2=4.  To me it looks looks like a trivial certitude.  And like most
    > >certitudes it is not easy to prove.  Banal certitudes cannot be
    > >prove.  You are before a cow, and it is pretty obvious it is cow, but
    > >you cannot prove it.  Only appealing to common sense it can be proved.
    > >But not in a philosophical way.  In a trial, the jury declares
    > >unanimously that the accused is guilty.  This is the result of the
    > >common sense, but it cannot be proved in a formal way.  It looks like
    > >the accused is guilty, but we cannot never be totally sure of that.
    > >Geode
    >
    > If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
    > we still don't really know.  But we can make a pretty good guess. That
    > is the way life works (whatever "life" is)!
    >
    > By the way, juries handle that with the notion of "beyond reasonable
    > doubt."

ok, that is common sense.  Banal certitudes.  I got not any problem
with that. "Beyond reasonable doubt" simply means, "it looks like he
did it.  Besides he have such a dangerous mug!  I remember the
Lombroso theory about the mugs of criminals."
It is about the same feeling we have when we are in a plane to fly
from NYC to San Francisco. You are telling yourself, "damn! this
thing is not going to fall down with me as a passenger!"
It is very likely that it will not.
Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/11/11 2:16 PM 	
Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/11/11 2:32 PM 	
backspace wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:21 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    >> backspace wrote:
    >>> On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

    >>>> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >>>>> No.
    >>
    >>>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    >>>> means a
    >>>> lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
    >>>> general
    >>>> notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>

    >>>> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    >>>> hearer
    >>>> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    >>>> random.

    >>>> --
    >>>> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of

>>>> Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.netBut al be that he was a


    >>>> philosophre,
    >>>> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >>
    >>> biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    >>> show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    >>> discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
    >>> of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
    >>> materialist paradigm.
    >>

    >>> therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a
    >>> view in terms of life.
    >>

    >> Absolute bollocks. In many cases study begins by saying, something
    >> is going on here that is interesting, I am not sure what it is, I
    >> don't even have a name for it let alone a tight definition but I
    >> must find out more. Tight definitions may be left for the end of the
    >> process, may be re-worked along the way or never arrive at all.
    >>
    >> You have never said anything before that so clearly shows that you
    >> have no idea about how science is actually done. It is not done by
    >> playing word games, it is done by trying to find useful ways to
    >> comprehend what we observe and that may include using words as fuzzy
    >> place holders until better understanding is possible.
    >>
    >> David
    >
    > wilkins is conflating materialism with Life itself, he is reasoning in
    > a circle, assuming that life will be materialistic.

That is a non sequitur to my reply and to what Wilkins posted.  He didn't
say, hint, infer or intend any such thing as I read it.  Try to focus on
what people actually say instead of the last thought that went romping
through your mind.

But words have no meaning so any such discipline is futile.

David


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/11/11 2:34 PM 	
backspace wrote:


    > On Apr 11, 2:25 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >> backspace wrote:

>>> On Apr 11, 10:35 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

    >>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    >>>>> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >>>>>> No.
    >>
    >>>>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    >>>>> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
    >>>>> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>

    >>>>> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    >>>>> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
    >>>>> to say, random.
    >>

    >>>> Yep.
    >>
    >>> back in 1780, 1870 fitness <=> spontaneous generation or Aristotle's
    >>> internal spontainety. Robert Chamber's Vestiges used
    >>> this concept to describe how spiders magically poofed into existence
    >>> out of thin air on the ends of battery terminals - 1844. This
    >>> concept was used by darwin for origins 1859. Lucretius Theory of
    >>> Necessity became Doctrine of Derivation by Owen, Spencer in turn
    >>> made this Theory of Evolution 1852 in Leadership magazine.
    >>

    >>> Note that fitness like love, cat or random has no actual meaning, it

>>> is an object used to represent a meaning in a knowledge context such


    >>> as spontaneous generation by Maperteus 1870 who used 'fitness'
    >>> first I think as a proxy for spontaneous generation.
    >>

    >>> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for correct spelling
    >>> and documented references of what i just wrote.
    >>

>> So it took just three iterations in a bit over three hours for you
>> to get to using the T word. Can I have my prize now?
>>
>> David
>
> well at least I did not start on the tautology issue from the first
> post, you have to give me some credit :)

Nice to know that you are not a robot   :-)

D

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Vend 	4/11/11 2:27 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > Words don't have meaning.

What do you mean?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/11/11 3:26 PM 	
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:42:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>Does random mean non-directed

Usually. So?
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/11/11 3:32 PM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT), the following


    appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    >> backspace wrote:
    >> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    >> would say yes.
    >>
    >> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    >> have in mind?
    >>
    >> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >> a tautology?
    >>
    >> David
    >
    >Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%
predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
intelligent agent". Do you?

And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
make? If so, please just say it and stop trying to be coy;
"coy" is merely irritating to adults.


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/11/11 3:34 PM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:40:03 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com>:

    >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >

    >> you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    >> paradigm.
    >

    >I do this frequently, in fact more often than not.  It's not hard.  

Never mind; BS is heavily into indefensible proclamations.


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Darwin123 	4/11/11 3:49 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 1:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed

Actually, no. It can in principle be directed by somebody or
something. In order to be truly random, the cause must not be
influenced by the consequences of the event.

In terms of evolution:
     The inheritable variation must not be correlated with the fitness
of the organism. In other words, the probability of the mutation must
not vary with the survival, use, ethics, morality, comfort, pain or
aesthetic value to the new organism. The physical mechanism of the
mutation must not be able to use information on the consequences of
the mutation.
     Consider pin the tail on the donkey without cues from the
audience. This is a good example of a random variation that is
directed. If a person is blind-folded and spun around, he loses track
of where the donkey is. Then he walks around with the pin. Now, he is
directing every step of his motion. However, he does not know whether
the step brings him closer or farther from the donkey. The direction
of the step has nothing to do with anything he may want or desire. He
has to make a wild guess.
     This game is directed, but without future information. For all
practical purposes, it is the same as not being directed. Yet, each
step was directed without the necessary information.
      This sounds a lot like "free will". I have found many religious
people who define free will the same as a mathematician defines the
word "random". To a mathematician, choices without background
information are not "free". They are "random".

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Darwin123 	4/11/11 3:55 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 3:32 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

   Absolutely not. A nonrandom event is correlated to something. It
does not have to be a conscious something.
     For example, the water in a river travels downhill due to
gravity. The gravity is not conscious. So in your definition, the
gravity can't direct anything. However, it does pull the water down
hill. Non-random can be said to imply that there were no choices to be
made.
    If there are no forks to the river, the path of a drop of water is
non-random. When the drop comes to the fork, it can go one way or
another. The process that chooses the direction is not conscious
either. However, the process does not select a probability that
changes the survivability of the droplet. The direction of the water
in this case is random only because it is unpredictable.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Ray Martinez 	4/11/11 4:48 PM 	
On Apr 11, 12:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:


    > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Even though I am replying to John Wilkins, I am talking to my friend
Stephan (Backspace).

> > > Does random mean non-directed
>

Yes, it does.

You asked a straight question and I have provided a straight answer
(unlike the Darwinists).

    > > No.
    >
    > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

What Wilkie is saying is that mutation has no bearing on the direction
of evolution under the influence of natural selection. Note Wilkie's
inability to answer your question clearly. He is answering "Yes" in a
non-straightforward way. His phraseology allows doubt, as if random
could mean non-random. Perhaps he is attempting to save the face of
fellow Darwinist Garamond Lethe and his "comprehensive answer."

Darwin publicly rebuked Asa Gray for suggesting non-random/guided
mutation at a time when evolutionary "science" had zero knowledge
concerning mutation. For any Darwinist to even so much as imply that
random does not mean "without guidance or direction" is equivocation.

    > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > random.

    > --
    > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Absolute nonsense. "Random" is not jargonistic----just the opposite.

Aristotelian logic: A cannot be A and not A at the same time. The
concept of random means "not designed." It never means anything else
in the Creationism v. Darwinism debate, Stephan.

John Wilkins's yea does not mean yea and his nay does not mean nay. In
other words, he phrases everything as to reserve the right to violate
Aristotelian logic whenever it needs to be violated. Wilkie, of
course, is not aware of his defective thinking. This is why we reject
evolution: the illogical thinking and arguments of Darwinists convince
us of the fact. Why is Wilkie unaware of his illogical thinking? A
certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question:

Naturalism is a delusional punishment from God for denying design in
nature.

This explains why Wilkie cannot think or argue logically; and it
explains why an evolutionary theory with no evidence in support is
accepted.

Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan IDist- species immutabilist

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/11/11 5:21 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 5:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 12:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > Even though I am replying to John Wilkins, I am talking to my friend
    > Stephan (Backspace).
    >
    > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't Ray, as has been shown to you many times now.

    >
    > You asked a straight question and I have provided a straight answer
    > (unlike the Darwinists).

Your answer is wrong, Ray.

    >
    > > > No.
    >
    > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > What Wilkie is saying is that mutation has no bearing on the direction
    > of evolution under the influence of natural selection.

Evolution doesn't have a direction, it's change over time.


    > Note Wilkie's
    > inability to answer your question clearly. He is answering "Yes" in a
    > non-straightforward way.

Except that he's not.

    >His phraseology allows doubt, as if random
    > could mean non-random. Perhaps he is attempting to save the face of
    > fellow Darwinist Garamond Lethe and his "comprehensive answer."

There's no need to "save face".


    >
    > Darwin publicly rebuked Asa Gray for suggesting non-random/guided
    > mutation at a time when evolutionary "science" had zero knowledge
    > concerning mutation.

Ray, Darwin's personal correspondence with Gray was not a "public
rebuke".    Apparently you've misunderstood what Darwin and Gray were
talking about.


    > For any Darwinist to even so much as imply that
    > random does not mean "without guidance or direction" is equivocation.

The issue is that "without guidance or direction" doesn't mean
"random".   Random happenstance may indeed be without direction, but
not everything that happens without deliberate guidance is random.
This has been explained to you many times, and you still get it
wrong.

    >
    > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > random.
    > > --
    > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > Absolute nonsense. "Random" is not jargonistic----just the opposite.

Dr. Wilkins didn't say that Random was "jargonistic".   He said that
some people misunderstand the way a word gets used.

    >
    > Aristotelian logic: A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

A good demonstration that Ray doesn't grasp logic, "Aristotelian" or
otherwise.

    > The
    > concept of random means "not designed."

Perhaps that's your own demented definition of the word, but it's not
what the "concept of random" means.    Not everything that's not
designed is a random happenstance.


    > It never means anything else
    > in the Creationism v. Darwinism debate, Stephan.

Wrong again, Ray.   Random does mean other things than what Ray
imagines.

    >
    > John Wilkins's yea does not mean yea and his nay does not mean nay. In
    > other words, he phrases everything as to reserve the right to violate
    > Aristotelian logic whenever it needs to be violated.

Again, Ray's grasp of logic is non existence.   He neither knows what
"A" or "not A" might be, but makes up whatever he wants.


    >Wilkie, of
    > course, is not aware of his defective thinking.

Massive irony.    Ray uses his own defective mind to claim someone
else has "defective thinking".

    > This is why we reject
    > evolution: the illogical thinking and arguments of Darwinists convince
    > us of the fact.

Ray, the only reason you reject evolution is you were told to do so.
Logic has nothing to do with it.

    > Why is Wilkie unaware of his illogical thinking? A
    > certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question:

Your "Stanford Ph.D" was wrong, Ray.   His "answer" makes no sense,
and is absurd on it's face.

    >
    > Naturalism is a delusional punishment from God for denying design in
    > nature.

It's interesting to see how Ray has changed this supposed declaration
from Gene Scott over the years.   This latest absurd phrasing is
amusing considering Gene has apparently been updating his claim, years
after his own death.   "Naturalism" is of course not a delusion, or a
punishment.   If God wished for intelligent persons to accept "design
in nature" he would have provided evidence of design in nature, not
punish persons for using their own intellect.


    >
    > This explains why Wilkie cannot think or argue logically; and it
    > explains why an evolutionary theory with no evidence in support is
    > accepted.

Again, the massive irony here is choking.   Ray, unable to think, or
argue logically, accuses others of the same.   Evolution has a great
deal of evidence to support it, evidence that Ray runs away from every
time it's discussed.  Ray must know the evidence is there, but make
silly claims like the above.

DJT


    >
    > Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan IDist- species immutabilist


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bill 	4/11/11 5:28 PM 	
On Apr 11, 5:23 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:55 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 3:21 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    > > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Does random mean non-directed


    >
    > > > > > No.
    >
    > > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > > random.
    > > > > --
    > > > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

    > > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

> > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > > materialist paradigm.


    > > .
    >
    > > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > > > in terms of life.
    >

> > Not at all. It's impressive how much you can do with fuzzy, just "good
> > enough" definitions. Sometimes straining too hard for precise
> > definitions accomplishes nothing, causes confusion, and wastes time.
> > [Wonder why that thought popped into my head just now.]
>
> even it is very difficult to have a certitude. But many of us have a
> few of them, for we have to believe something basic. At least the most
> banal questions, of life and science.
> Geode
> .

One of the banal certitudes I have not is the certitude with respect
to what you're talking about.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/11/11 5:49 PM 	

    On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:

    > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:35:44 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    > <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > <snip to ignore backspace's totally inane babbling>
    >

    >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    >>

    >>> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>>
    >>>> No.
    >>>
    >>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means
    >>> a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
    >>> general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>

    >>Not too long ago you had a tweet on you blog that led me to Theodore
    >>Brown's book _Making Truth:  Metaphor In Science_.  Which should
    >>probably tell you that you should be more responsible about what you
    >>tweet, but be that as it may....  This will become important in a
    >>moment.
    >>
    >>"a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation"
    >>
    >>That's not quite right.  I think it's more correct to say that mutations
    >>are independent of fitness.  Correlation would involve an x and y axis,
    >>and while "fitness" belongs on one I'm not sure what you'd put on the
    >>other.
    >>
    >>However, even though we can't generate an R^2 value from mutation vs.
    >>fitness, we can repurpose "correlation" as metaphor.  We can use other
    >>metaphors as well:  "random" and "non-directed" being the examples at
    >>hand.  ("Independent" is probably another metaphor; I'm still up in the
    >>air whether or not the mathematical formulas should be taken as
    >>metaphors as well.)
    >

    > You seem fixated on the Pearson product-moment correlation notion.

Hey, it happens.

    > Correlation in probability theory has a very technical definition: two
    > variables are correlated if and only if their covariance is not zero.

And outside of probability theory, correlation is often used as a
metaphor to describe something that resembles that technical definition.  

>
> Still,  Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
> correlation between fitness and mutation.
>

Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.  

    > First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
    > +1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
    > determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".
    >
    > Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
    > beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a reasonable
    > estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most definitely
    > correlated.  Correlation indicates a connection, not the direction of
    > causal relationship.  It is not directional.

Correlations don't even indicate a connection, do they?  

    >
    > Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation.  However the
    > fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
    > that mutation will occur.  That is the "random" part.  That is quite
    > different from "lack of correlatation."

Hmmm... I think you're committing the same error here.  I could give you
a precise mathematical definition of "randomness" that doesn't match up
with the above.  There's no need to, as you're using "random"
metaphorically instead of mathematically, just as John was using
correlation.

This is only a problem (and not much of one) in the presence of people
who are unable to think metaphorically.

(And if you have the opportunity to pick your metaphor, I still think
"independent" is a better one than "random" or "uncorrelated".)

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/11/11 5:56 PM 	

    On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:30:04 -0700, hersheyh wrote:

    > On Apr 11, 3:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

    >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >> > No.
    >>
    >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means
    >> a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
    >> general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>

    >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    >> understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    >> random.
    >> --
    >> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
    >> Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a philosophre,
    >> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

> As John so clearly points out, the way that "randomness" is empirically
> verified in the case of evolution is by the lack of correlation between
> the two variables, "relative fitness of a phenotype" and "mutation rate
> to that phenotype".  To date, nearly all such studies have demonstrated
> a lack of correlation.  

Well, no, I don't think that's the case at all.

But I may be wrong.  Which study did you have in mind that measured the
correlation between relative fitness to a phenotype and mutation rate to
a phenotype?

<snip>

> You need to tell us how you propose to distinguish empirically between
> "causally directed relationship" and "teleologically directed causal
> relationship".  

The latter has a user-specified objective function.  (Evolution is an
algorithm.  Biology is just a reference implementation.)

<snip>

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/11/11 7:06 PM 	

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:56:40 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:30:04 -0700, hersheyh wrote:

<snip>

    >> You need to tell us how you propose to distinguish empirically between
    >> "causally directed relationship" and "teleologically directed causal
    >> relationship".  
    >
    >The latter has a user-specified objective function.  (Evolution is an
    >algorithm.  Biology is just a reference implementation.)
    >

The problem is that horizontal gene transfer means classes, not to
mention families and genera, can have multiple inheritance.

Is the common ancestor of all life simply the assertion of a pure
abstract base class?

The truly greatest development in evolution was the origin of the
opposable thumb:  it meant the algorithm could be object oriented.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/11/11 7:13 PM 	
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:


    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:35:44 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    >> <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip to ignore backspace's totally inane babbling>
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    >>>

    >>>> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No.
    >>>>
    >>>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means
    >>>> a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a
    >>>> general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>>

I just like saying that about John.  Besides, he really said "things
are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.

    >> First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
    >> +1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
    >> determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".
    >>
    >> Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
    >> beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a reasonable
    >> estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most definitely
    >> correlated.  Correlation indicates a connection, not the direction of
    >> causal relationship.  It is not directional.
    >
    >Correlations don't even indicate a connection, do they?  

I should have written "association".

    >>
    >> Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation.  However the
    >> fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
    >> that mutation will occur.  That is the "random" part.  That is quite
    >> different from "lack of correlatation."
    >
    >Hmmm... I think you're committing the same error here.  I could give you
    >a precise mathematical definition of "randomness" that doesn't match up
    >with the above.  There's no need to, as you're using "random"
    >metaphorically instead of mathematically, just as John was using
    >correlation.

I was trying to put some sense in the use of "random" that others use.
The main thing about mutations is that there is no biological
mechanism to associates the probability of occurence of a particular
mutation with its effect on fitness.  You can imagine conceptual
evolutionary systems for which this is false, but biology isn't clever
enough to accomplish that task.  That is, if you don't count the
evolution of biological systems that can plan and implement eugenics
as part of biology.

    >This is only a problem (and not much of one) in the presence of people
    >who are unable to think metaphorically.
    >
    >(And if you have the opportunity to pick your metaphor, I still think
    >"independent" is a better one than "random" or "uncorrelated".)

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Buddythunder 	4/11/11 8:51 PM 	

    On Apr 11, 8:21 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > > No.
    >
    > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > random.
    > > --
    > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

    > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
    > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
    > materialist paradigm.
    >

    > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > in terms of life.

Sam Harris makes the point that the same goes for "health", but we
have no trouble talking sensibly in terms of being in "good health" or
"poor health". No-one seriously doubts the philosophical underpinnings
of medicine.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/11/11 9:30 PM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:06:04 -0700, r norman wrote:

    > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:56:40 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    > <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:30:04 -0700, hersheyh wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>> You need to tell us how you propose to distinguish empirically between
    >>> "causally directed relationship" and "teleologically directed causal
    >>> relationship".
    >>
    >>The latter has a user-specified objective function.  (Evolution is an
    >>algorithm.  Biology is just a reference implementation.)
    >>
    >>
    > The problem is that horizontal gene transfer means classes, not to
    > mention families and genera, can have multiple inheritance.
    >
    > Is the common ancestor of all life simply the assertion of a pure
    > abstract base class?

Well, we call it *the* pure abstract base class.... ;-)

(And life is defined as that which is Turing-complete.)

    >
    > The truly greatest development in evolution was the origin of the
    > opposable thumb:  it meant the algorithm could be object oriented.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/11/11 9:28 PM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:13:28 -0700, r norman wrote:

    > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    > <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:
    >>

    >>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:35:44 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    >>> <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <snip to ignore backspace's totally inane babbling>
    >>>
    >>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:59:45 +1000, John S. Wilkins wrote:
    >>>>

    >>>>> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    >>>>> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of
    >>>>> a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>>>

True.

    >
    >>> First, if X is a random variable uniformaly distributed between -1 and
    >>> +1 and Y = X*X, then X and Y are uncorrelated even though Y is totally
    >>> determined by X showing "uncorrelated" does not mean "unrelated".
    >>>
    >>> Second, if most mutations are either neutral or harmful and the
    >>> beneficial ones produce relatively small fitness increase (a
    >>> reasonable estimate of reality), then mutation and fitness are most
    >>> definitely correlated.  Correlation indicates a connection, not the
    >>> direction of causal relationship.  It is not directional.
    >>
    >>Correlations don't even indicate a connection, do they?
    >
    > I should have written "association".
    >
    >
    >>> Mutations influence fitness. That produces a correlation.  However the
    >>> fitness that would result from a mutation does not influence whether
    >>> that mutation will occur.  That is the "random" part.  That is quite
    >>> different from "lack of correlatation."
    >>
    >>Hmmm... I think you're committing the same error here.  I could give you
    >>a precise mathematical definition of "randomness" that doesn't match up
    >>with the above.  There's no need to, as you're using "random"
    >>metaphorically instead of mathematically, just as John was using
    >>correlation.
    >
    > I was trying to put some sense in the use of "random" that others use.

The less one knows about randomness the easier that is to do.  

    > The main thing about mutations is that there is no biological mechanism
    > to associates the probability of occurence of a particular mutation with
    > its effect on fitness.  You can imagine conceptual evolutionary systems
    > for which this is false, but biology isn't clever enough to accomplish
    > that task.  That is, if you don't count the evolution of biological
    > systems that can plan and implement eugenics as part of biology.

Complete agreement with you there.

    >
    >>This is only a problem (and not much of one) in the presence of people
    >>who are unable to think metaphorically.
    >>
    >>(And if you have the opportunity to pick your metaphor, I still think
    >>"independent" is a better one than "random" or "uncorrelated".)

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/12/11 12:14 AM 	
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

    > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    > <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:
    > >

...


    > >> Still,  Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
    > >> correlation between fitness and mutation.
    > >>
    > >
    > >Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.  
    >
    > I just like saying that about John.  Besides, he really said "things
    > are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.

Actually I said that is only one meaning of "random". And whether or not
you think that is right, it *is* a meaning as used.
...


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/12/11 2:50 AM 	
On Apr 11, 11:49 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 11, 1:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

choice is rather more complex, as I see.
Choice is related to the experience of a living being.  It is also
influenced socially, by social animals doing or imitating what others
are doing in his group.  For imitation has a strong social influence.
then, there is nothing that can be call a free choice, unless the
elements of the choice can can comparable.  Then, we can choose
between apples and pears, as long as we had an experience of eating
both. Then, a choice between apples and a disgusting anything cannot
be done. Either you can choose between alternatives that are equally
pleasant and possible.  Then, a prisoner cannot choose between the
food he is given to eat daily and other food that is not available for
him to eat.
That comes to my mind that the famous saying of religious fundies of
"homosexuality is a choice" does not make any sense if we are going to
believe gays saying they do not feel attracted to females.
If gays do not see the females as a source of probably sexual
pleasure, they could not desire them.  Then if the opposite is also
true, then the options to choose are not equal, and then there is not
a choice.
Perhaps, the best example for choice, is the "forced choice".  In a
forced choice, you can put an individual in the case of accepting
being a soldier sent to war or being punished harshly or even being
killed for disobedience.  Then, "forced choice" is very common in
social environments. The lioness has to let eat from the prey to male
lion for he gets very angry if not let to eat, and can bite anyone
barring his way to eat.  In similar cases, we has to accept believing
in a concrete god, or to feign one believes, for we can be "punished"
by denying the good jobs or with social rejection.

then, this a "forced choice".  Most people is confronted with a
reality in which he has to accept a shitty job, because he could not
find a better one. Then, this is also a forced choice because the
alternatives to have not a job is to earn not any money.

then, free choice is a banal situation that comes from our formal
experience, but only when the elements to choose have comparable
degrees of pleasantness.

If we take as an example a hunter gatherer that goes everyday to to
look for food, or to hunt, this is not a free choice, for he is forced
to do so by hunger.
Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/12/11 3:42 AM 	
On Apr 12, 12:48 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 11, 12:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >


    >
    > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > What Wilkie is saying is that mutation has no bearing on the direction

> of evolution under the influence of natural selection. Note Wilkie's


    > inability to answer your question clearly. He is answering "Yes" in a

> non-straightforward way. His phraseology allows doubt, as if random


    > could mean non-random. Perhaps he is attempting to save the face of
    > fellow Darwinist Garamond Lethe and his "comprehensive answer."
    >

    > Darwin publicly rebuked Asa Gray for suggesting non-random/guided
    > mutation at a time when evolutionary "science" had zero knowledge

> concerning mutation. For any Darwinist to even so much as imply that


    > random does not mean "without guidance or direction" is equivocation.
    >

    > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > random.

> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net


    > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

    > Absolute nonsense. "Random" is not jargonistic----just the opposite.
    >

> Aristotelian logic: A cannot be A and not A at the same time. The
> concept of random means "not designed." It never means anything else


    > in the Creationism v. Darwinism debate, Stephan.
    >

    > John Wilkins's yea does not mean yea and his nay does not mean nay. In
    > other words, he phrases everything as to reserve the right to violate

> Aristotelian logic whenever it needs to be violated. Wilkie, of
> course, is not aware of his defective thinking. This is why we reject


    > evolution: the illogical thinking and arguments of Darwinists convince

> us of the fact. Why is Wilkie unaware of his illogical thinking? A


    > certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question:
    >

    > Naturalism is a delusional punishment from God for denying design in
    > nature.
    >

    > This explains why Wilkie cannot think or argue logically; and it
    > explains why an evolutionary theory with no evidence in support is
    > accepted.
    >

    > Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan IDist- species immutabilist

We can call something random, but it does not mean it is random.
So, we can declare something is random but it isn't.  For we are in
error.  Then Aristotle has to change this saying stating, "sometimes
we call A as being Z, but it is not.  So, even if we think that A is
Z, we can be wrong."

The question is that even if we are using logic on daily base, not all
our logical operations are good.  Many of them can be wrong.

This can be called "principle of indetermination" in logical
operations.
It comes out when we argue, if A has the quality of being Z, then it
follows that so and so... etc.  Then, there could be many errors
involved in this sort of reasoning.  For A could have not the quality
of being Z, but W, or other.  On the other hand, even if A would have
the quality of being Z, our reasoning can be faulty for different
reasons.
It like when philosophers were arguing about the impossibility of
flying of flying of a bumblebee.  Or when they were arguing about
spontaneous surge of life in a pot full of wet grasses, the
spontaneous appearance of flies on a piece meat let to rote on a
plate.

On the argument of something being random.
When we do not know the reasons or an order for something to occur we
can call it random.
Perhaps, the mutations are not random in the sense of being totally
aleatory. But as we cannot see any sense or rule in the mutations we
can think its random.
But mutations could perhaps occurred in some constrained ways, and not
at random.   What I mean is that there is a number of errors in the
reproduction of DNA that are possible while others are not, or are
less likely.  That means, the probability of errors in reproducing DNA
is not truly aleatory, but looks so to us, because of the complexity
of the question.  Nevertheless, can be call mutations random because
it breaks the program the organism have to develop. As a consequence a
mutated organism can have visibly or invisible defects.  In some
cases, the organism dies as a consequence of some gross errors of
reproduction of DNA.

On the other hand, the mutations due to radiation can be truly random.
For no one can predict where the particle of radiation can hit and
destroy some important spot of the DNA.

Then, the question is not is something we call random is really
random.  We call something random for it looks as random, and we
cannot discern an order in the outcome of something that happens.

Then, the question as I see it is that we define something as the
result of some work of reasoning.  But there is not any law engraved
in stone by which a given fragment of reasoning has to be  perfect and
had not any erroneous component.

Then, we have to be a little cautious with the idea that once we start
reasoning not any errors would come out of this process.

My hypothesis is that it is more probably that not, that at least one
error would result from a given piece of reasoning.
Geode
.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	eridanus 	4/12/11 3:50 AM 	
On Apr 12, 1:28 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 5:23 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 9:55 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 3:21 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

> > > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > > > > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

> > > > > > No.


    >
    > > > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > > > random.
    > > > > > --
    > > > > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

    > > > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
    > > > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
    > > > > materialist paradigm.
    > > > .
    >
    > > > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > > > > in terms of life.
    >

    > > > Not at all. It's impressive how much you can do with fuzzy, just "good
    > > > enough" definitions. Sometimes straining too hard for precise
    > > > definitions accomplishes nothing, causes confusion, and wastes time.
    > > > [Wonder why that thought popped into my head just now.]
    >
    > > even it is very difficult to have a certitude. But many of us have a
    > > few of them, for we have to believe something basic. At least the most
    > > banal questions, of life and science.
    > > Geode
    > > .
    >
    > One of the banal certitudes I have not is the certitude with respect
    > to what you're talking about.

ok.  Is this a free sample of your reasoning power?
Can you discern between "unshakable certitudes" and shakeable
certitudes?

If our main and reputable scientists would had their minds full of
"unshakable certitudes" would had they be known today for their
extraordinary achievements?
Geode
.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Erwin Moller 	4/12/11 3:55 AM 	
On 4/11/2011 6:15 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> backspace<steph...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Does random mean non-directed
>
> It depends on what one means by "directed".  I can produce a
> totally random walk that will start in one predefined spot
> and end in another.  But that is not what is normally meant
> by "random".
>

If you produce a silly walk I would love to watch. :-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller

-- 
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/12/11 4:53 AM 	

    On Apr 12, 12:42 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 12, 12:48 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > On Apr 11, 12:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > > What Wilkie is saying is that mutation has no bearing on the direction
    > > of evolution under the influence of natural selection. Note Wilkie's
    > > inability to answer your question clearly. He is answering "Yes" in a
    > > non-straightforward way. His phraseology allows doubt, as if random
    > > could mean non-random. Perhaps he is attempting to save the face of
    > > fellow Darwinist Garamond Lethe and his "comprehensive answer."
    >
    > > Darwin publicly rebuked Asa Gray for suggesting non-random/guided
    > > mutation at a time when evolutionary "science" had zero knowledge
    > > concerning mutation. For any Darwinist to even so much as imply that
    > > random does not mean "without guidance or direction" is equivocation.
    >

    > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > random.
    > > > --
    > > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

are you dutch? Your grasp of English is not really good enough . In
dutch one could probably grasp what you are trying to say but not in
English. i am afrikaans a close cousin of dutch.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/12/11 5:00 AM 	
On Apr 11, 10:46 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:59 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > > <snip>
    >

    > > > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > > > paradigm.
    >

    > > > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
    >

> > .
>
> > > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
> > > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
> > > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
> > > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
> > > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
> > > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
>
> > If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
> > like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
> > the study is complete?
>
> > I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
> > meaningfully defined. If clear definitions are not needed is this a
> > valid criticism?
>
> But surely for the study of the single plane crash terms would be
> defined precisely, as appropriate for clear understanding?
>
> I would be satisfied if the IC people could simply *describe IC well
> enough that independent researchers could look for it in a particular
> object (e.g. fossil) or a process (e.g. rain). If they could describe
> it in such a way that it could actually be measured also, that would
> be swell. But they never do :(
>
> Kermit

true, they don't .
Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
something other than itself and patterns which only represent
themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.

on wikipedia the Epicureans don't define what they mean with non-
random, pattern and design. Without their world view on this
everything else they say natural selection, evolution is undefined,
worse than being wrong.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/12/11 5:06 AM 	
On Apr 11, 11:23 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 09:21, backspace wrote:


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    > >> Garamond Lethe<cartographi...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>
> >>> No.


    >
    > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    > >> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
    > >> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >

    > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    > >> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
    > >> to say, random. -- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy,

> >> University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.netBut al be that he


    > >> was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

    > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

> > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > materialist paradigm.
>


    > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a
    > > view in terms of life.
    >

> Nonsense, you simply bootstrap, starting with a tentative idea that you
> later refine.  If what you said were true, we would
> never be able to find out new things, since the process of fining out
> new things changes the meaning of what we originally looked at. (cf
> "Paradox of analysis")
>
> So in reality, we typically start with an ostensive definition, which
> does the job sufficiently well: This sort of things <points at trees,
> fish, bird> have something in common that these things <points at rocks,
> skeleton, car> don't have.  Let's call this "life". Now let's study it
> and see if we can find some good diagnostic rules first, and then maybe
> a definition later.
> St Augustine, in  De Magistro, 4, had pretty much figured that out.

Prof.Cleland showed that in the middle ages acids were called strong,
weak water. they were utterly clueless until it was
discovered that water is h20. Same with alchemy , we know why lead
can't turn into gold. Epicurean biologists are irritating sane and
rational people because at the base we can/'t define what Life is,
thus we are exposed to their endless nonsense with meaningless terms
like fitness , natural selection,  because we can't describe
mathematically what Life is.

d/dx in math is a universal operator, in biology fitness , selection
is used like universal operator and because we can't define what Life
is ,we can 't really say whether they are wrong or not. In contrast we
can explain why d/dx as a universal operator is valid.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/12/11 5:08 AM 	
On Apr 11, 10:43 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 11, 1:21 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > > > No.
    >
    > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
    > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
    > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
    > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
    > > > random.
    > > > --
    > > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
    > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
    > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
    > > materialist paradigm.
    >

> How else would it be defined, except in the materialist paradigm?
>
> I assume you eman something like this:
> materialist = " someone who thinks that nothing exists but physical
> matter"
> paradigm =  "a typical example or model of something"


    >
    > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > > in terms of life.
    >

> Who said life cannot be defined?

nasa consulting philospher Prof. Cleland says it is not defined like
water was not defined as h20 500 years ago, until it was discovered.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Friar Broccoli 	4/12/11 5:25 AM 	
On Apr 12, 8:00 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 11, 10:46 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 4:59 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > > > <snip>
    >

    > > > > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > > > > paradigm.
    >

 .

    > evolution is undefined, worse than being wrong.

What?
Evolution is descent with modification.  It includes naturally
occurring variation, selection from that variation, which indirectly
result in speciation and extinction.
"random" is implied but not central to the description.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/12/11 6:47 AM 	

    On Apr 12, 1:06 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 11:23 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >

    > > On 11/04/2011 09:21, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

    > > >> Garamond Lethe<cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > >>> No.
    >
    > > >> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    > > >> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
    > > >> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >
    > > >> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    > > >> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
    > > >> to say, random. -- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy,

> > >> University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.netButal be that he


    > > >> was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >
    > > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    > > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    > > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

> > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > > materialist paradigm.
>


    > > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a
    > > > view in terms of life.
    >

    > > Nonsense, you simply bootstrap, starting with a tentative idea that you
    > > later refine. If what you said were true, we would
    > > never be able to find out new things, since the process of fining out
    > > new things changes the meaning of what we originally looked at. (cf
    > > "Paradox of analysis")
    >
    > > So in reality, we typically start with an ostensive definition, which
    > > does the job sufficiently well: This sort of things <points at trees,
    > > fish, bird> have something in common that these things <points at rocks,
    > > skeleton, car> don't have. Let's call this "life". Now let's study it
    > > and see if we can find some good diagnostic rules first, and then maybe
    > > a definition later.
    > > St Augustine, in De Magistro, 4, had pretty much figured that out.
    >
    > Prof.Cleland showed that in the middle ages acids were called strong,
    > weak water. they were utterly clueless until it was
    > discovered that water is h20.

Nicely proves my point, don't you think?
We did not start our investigation of acids with a definition. People
observed that some fluids have certain properties. On this basis, they
formulated theories about them which then could be tested. Some turned
out wrong, others turned out right. As we progressed, our
understanding of what acids, and water, is changed and progressed in
turn.


 oSame with alchemy , we know why lead


    > can't turn into gold. Epicurean biologists are irritating sane and
    > rational people because at the base we can/'t define what Life is,
    > thus we are exposed to their endless nonsense with meaningless terms
    > like fitness , natural selection,  because we can't describe
    > mathematically what Life is.

Neither necessary nor possible desirable in order to study life

    >
    > d/dx in math is a universal operator, in biology fitness , selection
    > is used like universal operator and because we can't define what Life
    > is ,we can 't really say whether they are wrong or not. In contrast we
    > can explain why d/dx as a universal operator is valid.

d/dx is an uninterpreted string of  symbols, and for once, you'd be
right to call it meaningless. Normally, it is understood though as the
derivative of a function y. What is has to do with your point the gods
alone know.

Fitness (or rather absolute fitness) is commonly defined as  as the
ratio between the number of individuals with that genotype after
selection to those before selection. "Life" is not used in the
definition, and nothing depends on its definition for the purpose of
defining fitness (which would also apply to certain things that are
not alive - agents in a computer simulation e.g.)


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/12/11 8:11 AM 	

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:14:50 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
    Wilkins) wrote:

    >r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    >> <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:
    >> >
    >...
    >> >> Still,  Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
    >> >> correlation between fitness and mutation.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.  
    >>
    >> I just like saying that about John.  Besides, he really said "things
    >> are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.
    >
    >Actually I said that is only one meaning of "random". And whether or not
    >you think that is right, it *is* a meaning as used.
    >...

I don't think that is right.  The swinging of the pendulum on my
grandfather clock is uncorrelated with the orbit of Jupiter, yet I
don't think anyone would call either of these random.  

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/12/11 8:31 AM 	
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 05:06:30 -0700, backspace wrote:

<snip>

    > Same with alchemy , we know why lead can't turn into gold.

"Ironically, it transpired that, under true nuclear transmutation, it is
far easier to turn gold into lead than the reverse reaction, which was
the one the alchemists had ardently pursued. Nuclear experiments have
successfully transmuted lead into gold, but the expense far exceeds any
gain."

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

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/12/11 8:40 AM 	
On Apr 12, 11:11 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:14:50 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>
>
>
>
>
> Wilkins) wrote:


    > >r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:57 GMT, Garamond Lethe

    > >> <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >> >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:55:14 -0700, r norman wrote:
    >
    > >...
    > >> >> Still,  Wilkins is quite wrong about his definition about lack of
    > >> >> correlation between fitness and mutation.
    >
    > >> >Oh, I don't think I'd rank that as a "quite" wrong.  
    >
    > >> I just like saying that about John.  Besides, he really said "things
    > >> are random when uncorrelated" which is quite wrong.
    >
    > >Actually I said that is only one meaning of "random". And whether or not
    > >you think that is right, it *is* a meaning as used.
    > >...
    >
    > I don't think that is right.  The swinging of the pendulum on my
    > grandfather clock is uncorrelated with the orbit of Jupiter, yet I
    > don't think anyone would call either of these random.  

I think the way to say it is that the pendulum on your clock does not
interact with the orbit of Jupiter.  That is, you can change one or
the other (although it is somewhat harder to change the orbit of
Jupiter save by observation small amounts due to nearness of other
large masses) without that having any causal impact on or interaction
with the the other.  We would say that the swings of the pendulum are
independent of the orbit of Jupiter and thus are random *with respect
to* that orbit.  OTOH, a Foucault pendulum does interact with the
rotation of the earth and is not independent of it.  Its movements are
not "at random" with respect to the rotation of the earth.  That is
one definition of "randomness", and one that is relevant to the
relationship between genetic change (mutation) and fitness.

However, another definition is that a stochastic random event (say
whether a flipped coin shows heads or tails) is one in which it is
impossible beforehand to predict the result of a single event, even
though it is possible to predict a mean plus or minus variance of a
population of trials.  Thus, one can predict the expected mean of a
Mendelian cross or a specific mutation at a specific site, but cannot
predict beforehand which individual will show which trait.

I, of course, don't know which meaning backspace is using.  He
typically appears to imply that any event he wants to attribute to
design is design and any event he wishes to attribute to non-design is
non-design.  Such "definition" is, needless to say, rather
idiosyncratic and personal rather than clear and public.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mike L 	4/12/11 9:23 AM 	

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:53:51 -0700 (PDT), backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >On Apr 12, 12:42 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]


    >>
    >> Then, we have to be a little cautious with the idea that once we start
    >> reasoning not any errors would come out of this process.
    >>
    >> My hypothesis is that it is more probably that not, that at least one
    >> error would result from a given piece of reasoning.
    >> Geode
    >> .
    >
    >are you dutch? Your grasp of English is not really good enough . In
    >dutch one could probably grasp what you are trying to say but not in
    >English. i am afrikaans a close cousin of dutch.

Yes: we've noticed. His comprehension is better than his composition,
while, very curiously, your composition is better than your
comprehension -- one would have thought your case impossible, but
evolution does throw up anomalies from time to time. In your defence,
of course, you have often mentioned that you don't believe that
language means anything...but in that case, how can you say that
Geode's English, or anybody else's, is not "good enough"?

-- 
Mike.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/12/11 10:59 AM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:48:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

    >On Apr 11, 12:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >> > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    >Even though I am replying to John Wilkins, I am talking to my friend
    >Stephan (Backspace).
    >
    >> > > Does random mean non-directed

>Yes, it does.
>


    >You asked a straight question and I have provided a straight answer
    >(unlike the Darwinists).

That's because you're ignorant of the subject; "straight
answers" are easy when you don't know what you're talking
about. You might want to read some of the posts which
describe random but directed processes.

<snip>
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/12/11 11:03 AM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:32:55 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    >>> backspace wrote:
    >>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>

>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
>>> would say yes.
>>>
>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
>>> have in mind?
>>>
>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
>>> a tautology?
>>>
>>> David
>>
>>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
>
>Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%
>predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
>and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
>some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
>intelligent agent". Do you?

[Crickets...]

>And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
>which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
>make? If so, please just say it and stop trying to be coy;
>"coy" is merely irritating to adults.

[Crickets...]


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mark Isaak 	4/12/11 12:06 PM 	
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 05:00:43 -0700, backspace wrote:

>>[...]


    > Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
    > something other than itself and patterns which only represent
    > themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.

So a shadow is a design?

-- 
 Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
 honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
 pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mark Isaak 	4/12/11 12:13 PM 	

    On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:

> [...]


    > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
    > in terms of life.

Life is easy to define, compared with some other terms such as: religion,
god, soul, right and wrong.

    -- 
     Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
    "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
     honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
     pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/12/11 1:35 PM 	

    On Apr 12, 8:00 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 10:46 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 4:59 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >

> > > > > <snip>


    >
    > > > > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > > > > paradigm.
    >

    > > > > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
    >
    > > > .
    >
    > > > > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
    > > > > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
    > > > > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
    > > > > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
    > > > > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
    > > > > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
    >
    > > > If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
    > > > like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
    > > > the study is complete?
    >
    > > > I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
    > > > meaningfully defined. If clear definitions are not needed is this a
    > > > valid criticism?
    >
    > > But surely for the study of the single plane crash terms would be
    > > defined precisely, as appropriate for clear understanding?
    >
    > > I would be satisfied if the IC people could simply *describe IC well
    > > enough that independent researchers could look for it in a particular
    > > object (e.g. fossil) or a process (e.g. rain). If they could describe
    > > it in such a way that it could actually be measured also, that would
    > > be swell. But they never do :(
    >
    > > Kermit
    >
    > true, they don't .

    > Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
    > something other than itself and patterns which only represent
    > themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.

Not everything is a 'thing'.  Evolution, for example, is not a
'thing'.  It is a *process* that affects, over generations, the
composition of populations of 'genetic systems' by chance, historical
constraint, and local environmental (in the broadest sense) factors.
I use 'genetic systems' so as to include viruses, which may or may not
be alive, depending on one's definition of 'life', but certainly are
genetic systems regardless of that.  Evolution thus includes both
causal and chance factors like many processes.  And like many
processes, humans have been known to direct 'evolution' for their own
benefit, but that doesn't mean that the process doesn't or won't occur
in the absence of humans or any 'designing agent'.

    > on wikipedia the Epicureans don't define what they mean with non-
    > random, pattern and design. Without their world view on this

> everything else they say natural selection, evolution is undefined,
> worse than being wrong.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/12/11 2:37 PM 	

    backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 11:23 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> On 11/04/2011 09:21, backspace wrote:


    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >>>> Garamond Lethe<cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >>>>> No.
    >>
    >>>> It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it
    >>>> means a lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part
    >>>> of a general notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
    >>
    >>>> Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the
    >>>> hearer understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is
    >>>> to say, random. -- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy,

>>>> University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.netBut al be that he


    >>>> was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >>
    >>> biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
    >>> show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
    >>> discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study

>>> of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
>>> materialist paradigm.
>>


    >>> therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a
    >>> view in terms of life.
    >>

    >> Nonsense, you simply bootstrap, starting with a tentative idea that
    >> you later refine. If what you said were true, we would
    >> never be able to find out new things, since the process of fining out
    >> new things changes the meaning of what we originally looked at. (cf
    >> "Paradox of analysis")
    >>
    >> So in reality, we typically start with an ostensive definition, which
    >> does the job sufficiently well: This sort of things <points at trees,
    >> fish, bird> have something in common that these things <points at
    >> rocks, skeleton, car> don't have. Let's call this "life". Now let's
    >> study it and see if we can find some good diagnostic rules first,
    >> and then maybe a definition later.
    >> St Augustine, in De Magistro, 4, had pretty much figured that out.
    >
    > Prof.Cleland showed that in the middle ages acids were called strong,
    > weak water. they were utterly clueless until it was

> discovered that water is h20. Same with alchemy , we know why lead


    > can't turn into gold. Epicurean biologists are irritating sane and
    > rational people because at the base we can/'t define what Life is,
    > thus we are exposed to their endless nonsense with meaningless terms
    > like fitness , natural selection,  because we can't describe
    > mathematically what Life is.
    >

    > d/dx in math is a universal operator, in biology fitness , selection
    > is used like universal operator and because we can't define what Life
    > is ,we can 't really say whether they are wrong or not. In contrast we
    > can explain why d/dx as a universal operator is valid.

"Life" has no meaning, therefore it doesn't exist.  So you are not a living
person but a cardboard replica.  This attempt to defeat evolution with
semantics is just as futile as all the rest.

D

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/12/11 6:45 PM 	

    Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 05:06:30 -0700, backspace wrote:

><snip>

>> Same with alchemy , we know why lead can't turn into gold.

>"Ironically, it transpired that, under true nuclear transmutation, it is

    >far easier to turn gold into lead than the reverse reaction, which was
    >the one the alchemists had ardently pursued. Nuclear experiments have
    >successfully transmuted lead into gold, but the expense far exceeds any
    >gain."

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

Yes,  but we can get the government to cover the expense while
we keep the profit.

-- 
   --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/12/11 6:52 PM 	
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 12, 11:11 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:14:50 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>> >r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

I understand very little of this.  The orbit of Jupiter is not random
nor is the motion of a pendulum.   I don't know why R. Norman
dragged correlation into it.  Two random variables can be correlated
and still be random.  

More importantly, I don't know what folks mean by "stochastic".  For
me the term means "time dependent probability" so that a stochastic
process is a time dependent probability process.

That's the way I defined the term in my thesis and I'm sticking
with it... :-)

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/12/11 7:16 PM 	
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:15:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

    >backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>Does random mean non-directed
    >

    >It depends on what one means by "directed".  I can produce a
    >totally random walk that will start in one predefined spot
    >and end in another.  But that is not what is normally meant
    >by "random".


Oh sure. Next you'll be boasting that you can proliferate them in
polynomial time so that an external observer can never search the
entire state space fast enough to catch you at it. Oh wait...

These gods are devious.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/12/11 7:25 PM 	

The reason I dragged correlation into it is because Wilkins said:
"things are random when uncorrelated".  I gave an example of processes
that are uncorrelated but are not random.  Certainly two random
processes can either be correlated or not.

I don't see how you got away with defining a stochastic process as
specifically a time-dependent probability process.  That is totally
non-mathematical.  A stochastic  process is simply one that involves a
probability distribution.  See, for example, Wolfram MathWorld:
"Stochastic is synonymous with "random." The word is of Greek origin
and means "pertaining to chance" (Parzen 1962, p. 7). It is used to
indicate that a particular subject is seen from point of view of
randomness. Stochastic is often used as counterpart of the word
"deterministic," which means that random phenomena are not involved."
  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Stochastic.html

Wikipedia agrees: "Stochastic (from the Greek for aim or guess) means
random. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is
non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined
both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. "
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic

Nothing mentions time-dependence.  Note that a process is stochastic
if it includes some probabilistic factor along with other
deterministic factors: it need not be totally "random".

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/12/11 7:55 PM 	
On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >
    > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

> > Words don't have meaning.
>
> What do you mean?

Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/12/11 9:59 PM 	

    On Apr 12, 9:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 05:00:43 -0700, backspace wrote:
    > >>[...]

    > > Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
    > > something other than itself and patterns which only represent
    > > themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.
    >

    > So a shadow is a design?
    >

    > --
    >  Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
    > "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
    >  honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
    >  pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

google perry marshall design

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/12/11 10:10 PM 	
On Apr 13, 3:52 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

    > --
    >    --- Paul J. Gans

test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
mix blk and white marbles in a pot  and do a selection at random by
putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
design process

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/12/11 10:15 PM 	

wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have
meaning within a certain context  back in 1700 it was the pattern
design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
became undefined in1859

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/12/11 11:23 PM 	

I well remember my great uncle describing his college years in
pre-Civil War New England.  He was attending classes during his
sophomore year when suddenly the professors started talking gibberish.
Words no longer had any sense.  The event was so momentous he recorded
it (pictographically -- there was no other way) in his diary.  I just
checked the family relics -- it was March 1859,  the 12th at 10:48 AM
Eastern time to be specific.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Vend 	4/13/11 4:36 AM 	

    On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > > Words don't have meaning.
    >
    > > What do you mean?
    >
    > Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.

You are so mean.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Vend 	4/13/11 4:39 AM 	

    On Apr 13, 8:23 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:15:52 -0700 (PDT), backspace
    >
    >
    >

    > >wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have
    > >meaning within a certain context  back in 1700 it was the pattern
    > >design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
    > >became undefined in1859
    >
    > I well remember my great uncle describing his college years in
    > pre-Civil War New England.  He was attending classes during his
    > sophomore year when suddenly the professors started talking gibberish.
    > Words no longer had any sense.  

That's what happens when you eat spoiled apatosaurus steaks.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	jillery 	4/13/11 7:32 AM 	

Q. How do you spoil apatosaurus?
A. Let them eat too many ferns.

What?  This stuff kills at the KT Comedy Club.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/13/11 11:12 AM 	
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:15:52 -0700 (PDT), the following


    appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>
    >> > What do you mean?
    >>
    >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >
    >wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have
    >meaning within a certain context  back in 1700 it was the pattern
    >design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
    >became undefined in1859

So you're trying to use 19th-century thinking to address
21st-century issues? Do you perhaps see a potential problem?

And BTW, please learn correct English punctuation and
capitalization; it'll make you look less illiterate.


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/13/11 11:13 AM 	
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
<ven...@virgilio.it>:

    >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>
    >> > What do you mean?
    >>
    >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >

>You are so mean.

I believe her position is the median one.


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/13/11 11:14 AM 	
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:03:17 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

    >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:32:55 -0700, the following appeared
    >in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
    >
    >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    >><steph...@gmail.com>:
    >>
    >>>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    >>>> backspace wrote:
    >>>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>>

    >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    >>>> would say yes.
    >>>>
    >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    >>>> have in mind?
    >>>>
    >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >>>> a tautology?
    >>>>
    >>>> David
    >>>
    >>>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>
    >>Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%
    >>predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
    >>and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
    >>some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
    >>intelligent agent". Do you?
    >
    >[Crickets...]
    >
    >>And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
    >>which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
    >>make? If so, please just say it and stop trying to be coy;
    >>"coy" is merely irritating to adults.
    >
    >[Crickets...]

No response, BS?


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/13/11 11:34 AM 	
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:13:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

    >On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    ><ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >
    >>On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>

    >>> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>

    >>> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>>
    >>> > What do you mean?
    >>>
    >>> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >>
    >>You are so mean.
    >
    >I believe her position is the median one.

That is the usual mode of discourse, here.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/13/11 12:02 PM 	
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:


    >On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:52:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
    ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:


    >I don't see how you got away with defining a stochastic process as
    >specifically a time-dependent probability process.  

That was its definition way back when.  The current usage is as you
say and is both redundant and stupid.

    >That is totally
    >non-mathematical.  A stochastic  process is simply one that involves a
    >probability distribution.  

ALL random processes involve a probability distribution.  Which is
why I say using "stochastic" in this meaning is stupid because
it implies that there are probilities that do not involve a
probability distribution.


    >See, for example, Wolfram MathWorld:
    >"Stochastic is synonymous with "random." The word is of Greek origin
    >and means "pertaining to chance" (Parzen 1962, p. 7). It is used to
    >indicate that a particular subject is seen from point of view of
    >randomness. Stochastic is often used as counterpart of the word
    >"deterministic," which means that random phenomena are not involved."
    >  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Stochastic.html

    >Wikipedia agrees: "Stochastic (from the Greek for aim or guess) means
    >random. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is
    >non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined
    >both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. "
    >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic

    >Nothing mentions time-dependence.  Note that a process is stochastic
    >if it includes some probabilistic factor along with other
    >deterministic factors: it need not be totally "random".

Those are the current definitions.  You can see how stupid they
are by looking at the Mathword definition.  The counterpart of the
word "deterministic" is "random".  One does not need "stochastic"
for that usage.

The Wikipedia argument is in fact wrong.  Adding a deterministic
element to a random process does NOT remove any randomness.  It
can and will change the probability distribution, but that's it.

The word, back in the 1950's, grew up due to the need to distinguish
between time-independent random processes, such as the shaking of
a pair of dice, and the time dependent random processes such as
the amount of a radioactive material remaining after a time t.

The typical approach to the radioactive situation results in an
exponential distribution in which the radioactive material never
vanishes, a patently ridiculous result.  One can show this by taking
a mole of material with half-life 1 second and asking how long before
there is only 1/2 an atom left?  The answer is about 80 seconds.

A stochastic approach gives a much better result, allowing the
calculation of the average time at which there will be no atoms left.

The key here is time dependence.  Back then it was typical to consider
the random variable N to be an integer quantity that could vary
randomly only by one unit at a time.  The time variable, t, on the
other hand, was considered to be continuous.

Times change.  Definitions do not necessarily improve.  

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/13/11 12:11 PM 	
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:


    >On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:15:52 -0700 (PDT), backspace
    ><steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >>On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>
    >>> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>>
    >>> > What do you mean?
    >>>
    >>> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >>

    >>wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have
    >>meaning within a certain context  back in 1700 it was the pattern
    >>design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
    >>became undefined in1859

>I well remember my great uncle describing his college years in


    >pre-Civil War New England.  He was attending classes during his
    >sophomore year when suddenly the professors started talking gibberish.

    >Words no longer had any sense.  The event was so momentous he recorded
    >it (pictographically -- there was no other way) in his diary.  I just
    >checked the family relics -- it was March 1859,  the 12th at 10:48 AM
    >Eastern time to be specific.

Gee, I remember that too!

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/13/11 12:09 PM 	

    backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    >mix blk and white marbles in a pot  and do a selection at random by
    >putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    >marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    >design process

You do understand that the above is pure gibberish, don't you?

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Walter Bushell 	4/13/11 12:47 PM 	
In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
 Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

    > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    > <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >

> >On Apr 13, 4:55áam, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    > >> On Apr 11, 2:27ápm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    > >>
    > >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    > >>
    > >> > What do you mean?
    > >>

> >> Oh wait! áIt's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.


    > >
    > >You are so mean.
    >
    > I believe her position is the median one.

One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.

-- 
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mark Isaak 	4/13/11 12:57 PM 	

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:59:25 -0700, backspace wrote:

    > On Apr 12, 9:06 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 05:00:43 -0700, backspace wrote:
    >> >>[...]
    >> > Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
    >> > something other than itself and patterns which only represent
    >> > themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.
    >>
    >> So a shadow is a design?
    >>

> google perry marshall design

So a shadow *is* a design.

    -- 
     Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
    "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
     honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
     pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/13/11 1:14 PM 	
On Apr 12, 10:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >
    > > On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > > > Words don't have meaning.
    >
    > > > What do you mean?
    >

    > > Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >
    > wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have
    > meaning within a certain context  back in 1700 it was the pattern
    > design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
    > became undefined in1859

Fubble Gubble Quiggletoes.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/13/11 1:26 PM 	
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:02:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Here I must disagree with you quite vigorously.

My own course in probability and stochastic processes was back
somewhere around 1960 and had absolutely no connection to time or
state depedency.  My old notes and texts dating back to that era are
in my summer residence and are unavailable.  However the work
  Probability and Stochastic Processes with Applications

http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/math144_1994/probability.pdf
seems to be pretty much the same course but taught some 34 years
later.  It declares, simply: "A set {Xt} of random variables defines a
stochastic process....Stochastic processes are to probability
theory what differential equations are to calculus."  Your statement
about considering discrete probabilistic processes compared with
continuous time merely reflects the traditional way of teaching,
evidenced by this citation: Discrete probability theory and stochastic
processes are the first semester; continuous processes are the second.
There is no distinction except, as the author of this text comments,
most undergraduates drop out after the first semester leaving mainly
graduate students in the second.  That was a special interest of mine
at the time so I stuck it out for the full shot.

I do have available "The Princeton Companion to Mathematics" whose
section on Stochastic Processes  (IV.24,  ppl. 647-657) has a
historical introduction.  There I find the source of your confusion.
It says about stochastic processes: "Roughtly speaking, they are
mathematical models that describe the evolution of random phenomena as
time goes by."  That corresponds to the citation I gave above: they
are like differential equations which describes the trajectory or
dynamics of a process.  The problem is your use of "time dependent".
If I flip a coin (or roll the dice) the sequence that results from
successive trials is, indeed, a stochastic process even though there
is no "time dependent" factor present.  Radioactive decay is,
similarly, NOT time dependent.  The state of a system undergoing decay
does change with time, but the process, itself, is time invariant.
Compare with the differential equation metaphor:  the equation is NOT
time dependent unless the coefficients in the equation are; the
solution, if derivatives are taken with respect to a time variable,
does depend on time but the process is stationary, the technical term
for time independence.  You are thinking of things like Markov chains
or Martingales, albeit stationary (and hence not time dependent).

Stochastic is merely the preferred technical term for most ways that
"random" is used mathematically.  I don't think there has been any
change whatsoever in its usage; certainly not from the 50's


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Walter Bushell 	4/13/11 1:27 PM 	
In article <proto-1EAB90....@news.panix.com>,
 Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

    > In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
    >  Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    > > <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    > >

> > >On Apr 13, 4:55áam, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    > > >> On Apr 11, 2:27ápm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    > > >>
    > > >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    > > >>
    > > >> > What do you mean?
    > > >>

    > > >> Oh wait! áIt's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    > > >
    > > >You are so mean.
    > >
    > > I believe her position is the median one.
    >
    > One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.

Do Iraq up points for that?

    -- 
    The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
    is good, or is it the reverse?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Vend 	4/13/11 1:39 PM 	
On 13 Apr, 20:34, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:13:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>


    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    > >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    > ><ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >

> >>On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    > >>> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >
    > >>> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > >>> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >
    > >>> > What do you mean?
    >

> >>> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.


    >
    > >>You are so mean.
    >
    > >I believe her position is the median one.
    >

    > That is the usual mode of discourse, here.

In the meantime, the moment of normality is lost.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/13/11 3:34 PM 	
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

    > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:52:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
    > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
    >

> >hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:


    > >>On Apr 12, 11:11 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
    > >>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:14:50 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Wilkins) wrote:

    > The reason I dragged correlation into it is because Wilkins said:
    > "things are random when uncorrelated".  I gave an example of processes
    > that are uncorrelated but are not random.  Certainly two random
    > processes can either be correlated or not.

Yes they can, and mutations can be correlated with fitness (the usual
example is the biased mutation of bacteria under stress, although while
the mutation sites are biased, the mutations themselves appear not to
be). But that is not what I was aiming at. The *class* "mutation" and
the *class" fitness are independent of each other and when popular
scientists and philosophers including Darwin say that variation is
random they mean that variations (mutations) do not occur because they
are correlated with fitness outcomes.

Now you and I know the term also has a precise meaning - indeed several
prcise meanings - in statistics, mathematics, physics, economics and so
on. It even has precise meanings in biology. But in *this* context, that
is what is meant.


    >
    > I don't see how you got away with defining a stochastic process as

> specifically a time-dependent probability process.  That is totally


    > non-mathematical.  A stochastic  process is simply one that involves a

> probability distribution.  See, for example, Wolfram MathWorld:


    > "Stochastic is synonymous with "random." The word is of Greek origin
    > and means "pertaining to chance" (Parzen 1962, p. 7). It is used to
    > indicate that a particular subject is seen from point of view of
    > randomness. Stochastic is often used as counterpart of the word
    > "deterministic," which means that random phenomena are not involved."
    >   http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Stochastic.html
    >
    > Wikipedia agrees: "Stochastic (from the Greek for aim or guess) means
    > random. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is
    > non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined
    > both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. "
    >   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
    >
    > Nothing mentions time-dependence.  Note that a process is stochastic
    > if it includes some probabilistic factor along with other
    > deterministic factors: it need not be totally "random".


-- 
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/13/11 3:42 PM 	
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:27:52 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

    >In article <proto-1EAB90....@news.panix.com>,
    > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,

    >>  Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    >> > <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >> >
    >> > >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > What do you mean?
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >> > >
    >> > >You are so mean.
    >> >
    >> > I believe her position is the median one.
    >>

    >> One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >
    >Do Iraq up points for that?

Oh yes. That's no Dame Judi.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/13/11 5:05 PM 	
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:34:24 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
<snip>

    >> The reason I dragged correlation into it is because Wilkins said:
    >> "things are random when uncorrelated".  I gave an example of processes
    >> that are uncorrelated but are not random.  Certainly two random
    >> processes can either be correlated or not.
    >
    >Yes they can, and mutations can be correlated with fitness (the usual
    >example is the biased mutation of bacteria under stress, although while
    >the mutation sites are biased, the mutations themselves appear not to
    >be). But that is not what I was aiming at. The *class* "mutation" and
    >the *class" fitness are independent of each other and when popular
    >scientists and philosophers including Darwin say that variation is
    >random they mean that variations (mutations) do not occur because they
    >are correlated with fitness outcomes.
    >
    >Now you and I know the term also has a precise meaning - indeed several
    >prcise meanings - in statistics, mathematics, physics, economics and so
    >on. It even has precise meanings in biology. But in *this* context, that
    >is what is meant.

My impression is rather different.  Of course whether a mutation
occurs or which possible mutation (or set thereof) occurs is
independent of the resulting fitness.  That is a separate question.  I
have always associated the notion of  "random mutation" with the fact
that there is a rather large set of possible mutations and exactly
which one or more of them occur at any time is a random process.  That
fits with the biology.  That fits with the mathematics. Whether a
particular mutation occurs is truly a random variable.  Nowthat that
is out of the way, let's talk about fitness.  A separate issue.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/13/11 6:06 PM 	
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

I suspect it is going to depend upon the reference class appealed to. I
did an extensive (9 Google Books pages) search of the phrase "random
mutation" and excluding the religious books and a surprisingly large
number of AI and Games development texts, I found the following uses.
I'll begin with Francisco Ayala, whose view may be thought to fairly
represent some of the evolutionary biological community:

"Chance is, nevertheless, an integral part of the evolutionary process.
The mutations that yield the hereditary variations available to natural
selection arise at random. Mutations are random or chance events because
(1) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA
replication , and (2) because there is no way of knowing which gene will
mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual. However, the
meaning of "random" that is most significant for undertsanding the
evolutionary process is that (3) muatations are unoriented with respect
to evolution; they occur independently of whether or not they are
beneficial or harmful to the organisms." _Darwin's Gift to Science and
Religion_ p77

So Ayala agrees with me. Next Marc W. Kirschner, John C. Gerhart, and
John Norton in _The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma_,
page 220:

"Despite the randomness of mutation (with respect to selective
conditions), phenotypic variation cannot be random because it involves
modification of what already exists."

So they use it this way. Next, _Abusing science: the case against
creationism_ by Philip Kitcher, a philosopher:

"What do evolutionary theorists mean when they talk about mutation... as
a random process? In some cases mutation is only _apparently_ random.
Mutations are often produced by modifying the genetic material in
accordance with (nonprobabilistic) laws of physics and chemistry. ... In
such cases the mutations would be revealed as having a deterministic
basis.

When evolutionary theorists claim that mutations are random processes,
they intend to indicate that, in some cases the deterministic basis for
mutations is unknown, and that in other cases mutations are irreducibly
random phenomena governed by the probabilistic laws of quantum physics.
But they also intend something quite different: to exclude a certain
kind of basis for the occurence of mutations.

[Brief discussion of Lamarckism]

[Quoting Mayr]

"... Since this term [randomness] has often been misunderstood, it must
be emphasized that it merely means (a) that the locus of the next
mutation cannot be predicted, and (b) that there is no known correlation
between a particular set of environmental conditions and the particular
allele among many possible ones to which a gene will mutate." " page 88.

So Mayr and Kitcher use it this way.

Here's one more, which I pick because the author used to frequent t.o:

_Origins of language: constraints on hypotheses_ by Sverker Johansson,
page 15:

"'Random' is used here in the special sense of random with respect to
reproductive success (fitness), with no correlation between the
probability of any specific mutation and its effect upon fitness."

So I stick with my reading. In a specifically evolutionary sense,
"random" usually means no correlation between the mutation and fitness.
There are many other meanings. They have a purchase in biology too (vide
the Mayr quote in the Kitcher passage). But the *evolutionary* sense is
a lack of correlation.

Now, you may think this is wrong, or that this sense of random elides or
reduces to one or more of the other technical senses. But that is
superadded to the usage. You have to argue for that and deal with those
who think the meaning is self-standing. And it won't help to deal with
the evolution-critics who think it means Epicurean chance and the loss
of all meaning in the world. If we get it clear what it does mean in
evolutionary terms, then we can move onto these other meanings and ask
whether the evolutionary sense implies them.


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/13/11 6:19 PM 	

    Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
    >In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
    > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

    >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    >> <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >>

>> >On Apr 13, 4:55?am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >> >> On Apr 11, 2:27?pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >> >>
    >> >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >> >>
    >> >> > What do you mean?
    >> >>

>> >> Oh wait! ?It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.


    >> >
    >> >You are so mean.
    >>
    >> I believe her position is the median one.

    >One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.

It hurts!  It hurts so bad!  Ooooohhhh...

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/13/11 6:42 PM 	
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:02:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:

    >>r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:52:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
    >>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>

    >>>I don't see how you got away with defining a stochastic process as
    >>>specifically a time-dependent probability process.  
    >>

    >>That was its definition way back when.  The current usage is as you
    >>say and is both redundant and stupid.
    >>

    >>>That is totally
    >>>non-mathematical.  A stochastic  process is simply one that involves a
    >>>probability distribution.  
    >>

    >>ALL random processes involve a probability distribution.  Which is
    >>why I say using "stochastic" in this meaning is stupid because

>>it implies that there are probilities that do not involve a

    >>probability distribution.
    >>
    >>
    >>>See, for example, Wolfram MathWorld:
    >>>"Stochastic is synonymous with "random." The word is of Greek origin
    >>>and means "pertaining to chance" (Parzen 1962, p. 7). It is used to
    >>>indicate that a particular subject is seen from point of view of
    >>>randomness. Stochastic is often used as counterpart of the word
    >>>"deterministic," which means that random phenomena are not involved."
    >>>  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Stochastic.html
    >>
    >>>Wikipedia agrees: "Stochastic (from the Greek for aim or guess) means
    >>>random. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is
    >>>non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined
    >>>both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. "
    >>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
    >>
    >>>Nothing mentions time-dependence.  Note that a process is stochastic
    >>>if it includes some probabilistic factor along with other
    >>>deterministic factors: it need not be totally "random".
    >>

As you note in the next paragraph, that's compatible with the
definition I used.

    >I do have available "The Princeton Companion to Mathematics" whose
    >section on Stochastic Processes  (IV.24,  ppl. 647-657) has a
    >historical introduction.  There I find the source of your confusion.

It is NOT the source of my confusion.  I have no confusion.  I'm
in print (Journal of Chemical Physics) using it -- the usage
being accepted by the editors and the reviewers.  See J. Chem. Phys
32, 247 (1960).

    >It says about stochastic processes: "Roughtly speaking, they are
    >mathematical models that describe the evolution of random phenomena as
    >time goes by."  That corresponds to the citation I gave above: they
    >are like differential equations which describes the trajectory or
    >dynamics of a process.  

Nope.  That's exactly my definition.  

    >The problem is your use of "time dependent".
    >If I flip a coin (or roll the dice) the sequence that results from
    >successive trials is, indeed, a stochastic process even though there
    >is no "time dependent" factor present.  

Not at all.  It is a repeated random process and is discussed in
those terms in most books.

    >Radioactive decay is,
    >similarly, NOT time dependent.  The state of a system undergoing decay
    >does change with time, but the process, itself, is time invariant.

Now you are confusing me.  We are not discussing the nuclear
mechanism involved in nuclear decay.  We are discussing a series
of numbers that change in time.  Example:  the number of clicks on
a Geiger counter per minute.

    >Compare with the differential equation metaphor:  the equation is NOT
    >time dependent unless the coefficients in the equation are; the
    >solution, if derivatives are taken with respect to a time variable,
    >does depend on time but the process is stationary, the technical term
    >for time independence.  

I think not.  Such an equation is time dependent if fime is a
parameter in the equations.  a dx/dt + b = 0 with a and b constants
independent of time IS a time dependent differential equation with
a solution that explicitly contains the time.  In fact the solution
is x - x0 = -b(t-t0)/a  where x0 is the value of x at time t0.

    >You are thinking of things like Markov chains
    >or Martingales, albeit stationary (and hence not time dependent).

Please.  Let's not go there.  There are time-dependent Markov
chains.

    >Stochastic is merely the preferred technical term for most ways that
    >"random" is used mathematically.  I don't think there has been any
    >change whatsoever in its usage; certainly not from the 50's

I've given at least one example and you've given another.  Here is
another:

  "The terms 'stochastic process' and 'random process' are synonyms
   and cover practically all the theory of probability from coin
   tossing to harmonic analysys.  In practice, the term "stochastic
   process" is used mostly when a time parameter is introduced."

That's from William Feller's "An Introductoin to Probability Theory
and Its Applications", Volume 1, Second Edition, John Wiley.  The
original publication date is 1950, the second edition was published
in 1957.  The Third Edition, 1968, can still be purchased from Amazon.

A number of the mathematical types here will recognize Feller as one
of the major probability books ever published in English.

And that's about all of that.

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/13/11 6:45 PM 	
James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:27:52 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>wrote:

>>In article <proto-1EAB90....@news.panix.com>,


    >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
    >>>  Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    >>> > <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >>> >

>>> > >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >>> > >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>> > >>
    >>> > >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> > >>
    >>> > >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> > >>
    >>> > >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>> > >>
    >>> > >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>> > >>
    >>> > >> > What do you mean?
    >>> > >>

>>> > >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.


    >>> > >
    >>> > >You are so mean.
    >>> >
    >>> > I believe her position is the median one.
    >>>
    >>> One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >>

    >>Do Iraq up points for that?

    >Oh yes. That's no Dame Judi.

Are you saying that Walter is Dench?

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/13/11 7:43 PM 	

That would be an unsupportable claim. For all I know, he's fluffy.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/13/11 8:02 PM 	
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 01:42:54 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:02:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

I also recognize Feller.   Volume 1 was limited to discrete
distributions which may be why you thought that stochastic processes
were originally similarly inclined.  Most people gave up waiting for
volume 2 and had to turn to other sources for continuous processes.

When I return to Michigan in a few weeks, I can check to...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/13/11 8:16 PM 	
I thought I'd add a few other evolutionary theorists using my
interpretation:

Dobzhansky
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uq7xf0rcCQIC&lpg=PA300&dq=random%20muta
tion&pg=PA300#v=onepage&q=random%20mutation&f=false

Lynne Corporale
http://books.google.com/books?id=U_EqrW2y_E8C&lpg=PP1&dq=random%20mutati
on&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q=random%20mutation&f=false

Margulis and Sagan (I know...)
http://books.google.com/books?id=DS-VehE00ncC&lpg=PA11&dq=random%20mutat
ion&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q=random%20mutation&f=false

_Lewin's genes X_ by Benjamin Lewin, Jocelyn E. Krebs, Elliott S.
Goldstein, Stephen T. Kilpatrick, page 162: "Mutations are random with
regard to their effects..."

Nicholas Barton _Evolution_, page 33: "Mutation is random with respect
to adaptation; there is no bias toward well-adapted variations."

Stephen Jay Gould:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nhIl7e61WOUC&lpg=PA144&dq=random%20muta
tion%20gould&pg=PA144#v=onepage&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=z8tDIQi5HaUC&lpg=PA286&dq=random%20muta
tion%20gould&pg=PA286#v=onepage&q&f=false

and Dawkins and Simpson are quoted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Michael Siemon 	4/13/11 8:12 PM 	
In article <io5jeu$mcp$1...@reader1.panix.com>,


     Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

...

    > I've given at least one example and you've given another.  Here is
    > another:
    >
    >   "The terms 'stochastic process' and 'random process' are synonyms
    >    and cover practically all the theory of probability from coin
    >    tossing to harmonic analysys.  In practice, the term "stochastic
    >    process" is used mostly when a time parameter is introduced."
    >
    > That's from William Feller's "An Introductoin to Probability Theory
    > and Its Applications", Volume 1, Second Edition, John Wiley.  The
    > original publication date is 1950, the second edition was published
    > in 1957.  The Third Edition, 1968, can still be purchased from Amazon.
    >
    > A number of the mathematical types here will recognize Feller as one
    > of the major probability books ever published in English.

Yep; Feller is what I used ... I take his definitions as, well,
definitive. :-)


    >
    > And that's about all of that.

I'm with you on this!

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/13/11 8:12 PM 	

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:06:07 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
    Wilkins) wrote:

    >r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:34:24 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

    >> Wilkins) wrote:
    >>
    >> >r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
    >> >

Ayala gives the mathematical type definition as (2).  I agree that he
adds (3) for which he puts quotes around the word "random" to indicate
that it is a non-standard usage.

    >So Ayala agrees with me. Next Marc W. Kirschner, John C. Gerhart, and
    >John Norton in _The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma_,
    >page 220:
    >
    >"Despite the randomness of mutation (with respect to selective
    >conditions), phenotypic variation cannot be random because it involves
    >modification of what already exists."

I don't read it that way.  The "with respect to" doesn't really make
much sense in this out of context selection.

    >So they use it this way. Next, _Abusing science: the case against
    >creationism_ by Philip Kitcher, a philosopher:
    >
    >"What do evolutionary theorists mean when they talk about mutation... as
    >a random process? In some cases mutation is only _apparently_ random.
    >Mutations are often produced by modifying the genetic material in
    >accordance with (nonprobabilistic) laws of physics and chemistry. ... In
    >such cases the mutations would be revealed as having a deterministic
    >basis.
    >
    >When evolutionary theorists claim that mutations are random processes,
    >they intend to indicate that, in some cases the deterministic basis for
    >mutations is unknown, and that in other cases mutations are irreducibly
    >random phenomena governed by the probabilistic laws of quantum physics.
    >But they also intend something quite different: to exclude a certain
    >kind of basis for the occurence of mutations.

Here you omit specifying what the "certain kind of basis" might be.
What they really intend is the mathematical definition.  What they
also "intend" by abusing the definition is quite unspecified.

    >[Brief discussion of Lamarckism]
    >
    >[Quoting Mayr]
    >
    >"... Since this term [randomness] has often been misunderstood, it must
    >be emphasized that it merely means (a) that the locus of the next
    >mutation cannot be predicted, and (b) that there is no known correlation
    >between a particular set of environmental conditions and the particular
    >allele among many possible ones to which a gene will mutate." " page 88.

This is exactly the mathematical definition that makes no reference
whatsoever to independence from the fitness that results.

    >So Mayr and Kitcher use it this way.
    >
    >Here's one more, which I pick because the author used to frequent t.o:
    >
    >_Origins of language: constraints on hypotheses_ by Sverker Johansson,
    >page 15:
    >
    >"'Random' is used here in the special sense of random with respect to
    >reproductive success (fitness), with no correlation between the
    >probability of any specific mutation and its effect upon fitness."
    >
    >So I stick with my reading. In a specifically evolutionary sense,
    >"random" usually means no correlation between the mutation and fitness.
    >There are many other meanings. They have a purchase in biology too (vide
    >the Mayr quote in the Kitcher passage). But the *evolutionary* sense is
    >a lack of correlation.
    >
    >Now, you may think this is wrong, or that this sense of random elides or
    >reduces to one or more of the other technical senses. But that is
    >superadded to the usage. You have to argue for that and deal with those
    >who think the meaning is self-standing. And it won't help to deal with
    >the evolution-critics who think it means Epicurean chance and the loss
    >of all meaning in the world. If we get it clear what it does mean in
    >evolutionary terms, then we can move onto these other meanings and ask
    >whether the evolutionary sense implies them.

One of the real problems with evolution is that even its ardent
practitioners abuse language and mathematical usage so horribly.
Specifying "random mutation" as being random as to locus and to
particular allele make good sense.  Asserting that the machinery of
mutation is totally independent of any fitness that may result makes
good sense.  The two issues are not confused.  There is no loss of
meaning.  Creationists cannot make hay from the misuse of language.

This is quite akin to talking about a "fitness landscape" over the
genotype space; a mathematical monstrosity that helps nobody explain
anything.

So you have demonstrated that people use "random" to mean "these two
events have no causal connection or relationship" even though
randomness plays absolutely zero role in that lack of causal
connection.  Have it your way -- the wrong way.  I thought you would
stand up for righteousness.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/13/11 11:33 PM 	

    On Apr 14, 12:34 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

    > Yes they can, and mutations can be correlated with fitness (the usual
    > example is the biased mutation of bacteria under stress, although while
    > the mutation sites are biased, the mutations themselves appear not to
    > be). But that is not what I was aiming at. The *class* "mutation" and
    > the *class" fitness are independent of each other and when popular
    > scientists and philosophers including Darwin say that variation is
    > random

He said no such thing, only used the word chance in OoS , no mention
of random. Charles Kingsley interpreted darwin as '''...absolute
empire of accident....'''


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/13/11 11:55 PM 	

<blockquote>
To Rev. F.D. Maurice

"I am very busy working out points of Natural Theology,
by the strange light of Huxley, Darwin and Lyell.  I  
think I shall come to something worth having before I
have done.  But I am not going to rush into print this
seven years, for this reason:  The state of the scientific
mind is most curious;  Darwin is conquering everywhere,
and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth
and fact.  The one or two who hold out are forced to try
all sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or else by evoking
the /odium theologicum/.... But they find that now they
have got rid of an interfering God --- a master-magician,
as I call it --- they have to choose between the absolute
empire of accident, and a living, immanent, ever-working
God.  
</blockquote>

_Charles Kingsley, His Letters, and Memories of His Life,
Vol. 2_.  p 175.

I don't see anything wrong with a "living, immanent, ever-working God",
but both Kingsley and I can recognize "subterfuges as to fact", like,
say, your wonderfully ironic attempt at a quote mine.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/13/11 11:59 PM 	

    > test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    > mix blk and white marbles in a pot  and do a selection at random by
    > putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    > marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    > design process

Backspace have another go at this, I have no idea what you are trying to say
and I suspect nobody else does either.

D

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/14/11 12:05 AM 	

    backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >>>> Words don't have meaning.
    >>
    >>> What do you mean?
    >>
    >> Oh wait! It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >

    > wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have
    > meaning within a certain context

This is just a tiny bit silly (not very much just a smidgeon).  We
communicate ideas through words.  What context do ideas have except through
words standing for them among other words?

     back in 1700 it was the pattern
    > design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
    > became undefined in1859

Please advise how and why language became undefined in 1859.  Please tell me
it wasn't Chuckie D who performed the darstardly deed.

D

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/14/11 12:08 AM 	

    r norman wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:15:52 -0700 (PDT), backspace

    > <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>>
    >>>>> Words don't have meaning.
    >>>
    >>>> What do you mean?
    >>>
    >>> Oh wait! It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >>
    >> wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have

>> meaning within a certain context  back in 1700 it was the pattern


    >> design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
    >> became undefined in1859
    >

    > I well remember my great uncle describing his college years in
    > pre-Civil War New England.  He was attending classes during his
    > sophomore year when suddenly the professors started talking gibberish.
    > Words no longer had any sense.  The event was so momentous he recorded
    > it (pictographically -- there was no other way) in his diary.  I just
    > checked the family relics -- it was March 1859,  the 12th at 10:48 AM
    > Eastern time to be specific.

Oh no, where's my heart pills and my asthma puffer, oh, falls on floor,
choking, black spots before eyes, ahhhhhhh, cough, suck, heave.  Evil,
Richard .

David

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/14/11 1:07 AM 	
David Hare-Scott <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

I would say something in appreciation, but it wouldn't mean anything.


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mike L 	4/14/11 6:15 AM 	

It's one of his favourites: the Kingsley misquotation has appeared
before. Kingsley, the Christian Socialist, was, of course, a supporter
of Darwin. When I first caught Backspace in this act I put it down to
a poor grasp of Victorian literary English; but it's now clear that
his memory isn't up to the job, or that he's trying to pull a fast
one.

BS, try this:
"A celebrated author and divine has written to me that 'he has
gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the
Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of
self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He
required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the
action of His laws'." That's Darwin, in the introduction to the 2nd
edition of OoS. The "celebrated author and divine" was Charles
Kingsley.

-- 
Mike.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/14/11 11:23 AM 	

    On Apr 14, 3:15 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:55:43 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Osborn and Burroughs understood Darwin's chance to be absolute empire
of accident. See
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs

Osborn stated in his New York Times article 5 Aug.1922 that Darwin had
wrongly supposed Evolution to be a chance concept and quoted Kingsley
in the article. Osborn was influenced by Waagen, who held that
evolution is not a chance process 1899 around I think.

What is incomprehensible is the continual insistence by Wilkins,
Hershey etc. that Darwin said Random: he said no such thing and did
not use the word, he used Chance which meant exactly what Kingsley
wrote to Frederick Maurice (strong theist) with 'absolute empire of
accident'.

Kingsley was a gentleman , and back then it meant saying in effect
that the concept of God is nonsense but in a nuanced way such as '....
choosing between a benevolent God and chance(empire of
accident).....'.

My point on the wiki at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology is
that chance, divine intervention or anything was a non-sequitur due to
the structural tautological flaws in their narrative from Empedocles ,
Aristotle to Osborn etc.

    > BS, try this:
    > "A celebrated author and divine has written to me that 'he has
    > gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the
    > Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of
    > self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He
    > required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the
    > action of His laws'." That's Darwin, in the introduction to the 2nd
    > edition of OoS. The "celebrated author and divine" was Charles
    > Kingsley.

Which is in plain English means theistic evolution, which YEC
considers as incorrect.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/14/11 11:28 AM 	

It is rather odd that he doesn't tell us whether the whole process he
describes is "random" by "only represent[ing] itself" or is a "design
process" because he places the white ones on the table.  Or, just
perhaps, that the process involves both a random step (picking the
marble from the bag without knowing its color beforehand) and a design
step.  If he chose metal and plastic balls instead of white and black,
I wonder if the second step might be him mechanically and non-
discriminantly rolling the marbles in a strong magnetic field might be
entirely non-design because the human does nothing to cause the
discrimination.  He needs to parse what exactly in the above is
pattern and what is design and why he thinks so.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/14/11 11:55 AM 	
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:47:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

    >In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
    > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    >> <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >>

    >> >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >> >>
    >> >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >> >>
    >> >> > What do you mean?
    >> >>
    >> >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >> >

    >> >You are so mean.
    >>
    >> I believe her position is the median one.
    >
    >One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.

Someone should hittite you with a stick when you babylon
like that.
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/14/11 11:57 AM 	
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:27:52 -0400, the following appeared


    in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <proto-1EAB90....@news.panix.com>,


    > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
    >>  Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    >> > <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >> >
    >> > >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > What do you mean?
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >> > >
    >> > >You are so mean.
    >> >
    >> > I believe her position is the median one.
    >>
    >> One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >

    >Do Iraq up points for that?

Only if it's your Parthian shot.


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/14/11 12:02 PM 	

magnetism represents itself google perry marshall

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/14/11 12:04 PM 	
On Apr 13, 9:09 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:


    > backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    > >mix blk and white marbles in a pot  and do a selection at random by
    > >putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    > >marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    > >design process
    >

> You do understand that the above is pure gibberish, don't you?


    >
    > --
    >    --- Paul J. Gans

yes,i am on a tablet will repost later in comprehensible
manner ,sorry.....


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/14/11 12:08 PM 	
On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com>  wrote:


    > >> backspace wrote:
    > >>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

> >> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
> >> would say yes.
>
> >> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
> >> have in mind?
>
> >> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
> >> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
> >> a tautology?
>
> >> David
>
> > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
>
> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
> have very different meanings depending on the context.

what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/14/11 12:25 PM 	

    On Apr 14, 3:02 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 8:28 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > On Apr 14, 2:59 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    > > > > mix blk and white marbles in a pot and do a selection at random by
    > > > > putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    > > > > marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    > > > > design process
    >

    > > > Backspace have another go at this, I have no idea what you are trying to say
    > > > and I suspect nobody else does either.
    >
    > > > D
    >
    > > It is rather odd that he doesn't tell us whether the whole process he
    > > describes is "random" by "only represent[ing] itself" or is a "design
    > > process" because he places the white ones on the table. Or, just
    > > perhaps, that the process involves both a random step (picking the
    > > marble from the bag without knowing its color beforehand) and a design
    > > step. If he chose metal and plastic balls instead of white and black,
    > > I wonder if the second step might be him mechanically and non-
    > > discriminantly rolling the marbles in a strong magnetic field might be
    > > entirely non-design because the human does nothing to cause the
    > > discrimination. He needs to parse what exactly in the above is
    > > pattern and what is design and why he thinks so.
    >
    > magnetism represents itself google perry marshall

Evasion.  There are several steps in the process you described.  You
need to parse out which are patterns and which are design.  That
magnetism "represents itself" (whatever that means) doesn't say
anything useful other than that you can string together words.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Ray Martinez 	4/14/11 12:31 PM 	

Then why are you anti-ID?

    > but both Kingsley and I can recognize "subterfuges as to fact", like,
    > say, your wonderfully ironic attempt at a quote mine.

You are the one who is quote-mining.

Ray


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/14/11 1:04 PM 	

The first is not normally a concept from evolutionary biology, the
second one is. An example for random natural selection (if we accept
that humans are part of nature too) would be a situation where someone
throws a dice to decide which animals are to be shot.  Evolution as
commonly understood would struggle under these conditions.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/14/11 1:28 PM 	
On 4/14/11 1:08 PM, backspace wrote:
snip

    >>
    >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>
    >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?

There is no such thing as random natural selection.   It's as silly as
claiming there is "random gravity" or "random hydraulics".

DJT

>

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/14/11 1:32 PM 	

Why do you assume he is "anti-ID"?    Perhaps he accepts that "ID" is a
religious belief, not science, and therefore doesn't belong in science
classes.  That is not being "anti-ID".

    >
    >> but both Kingsley and I can recognize "subterfuges as to fact", like,
    >> say, your wonderfully ironic attempt at a quote mine.
    >
    > You are the one who is quote-mining.

Can you show that the above quote is taken out of context, and changes
the meaning of the overall statement?   If not, it's not quote mining.


DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/14/11 1:40 PM 	

    On Apr 14, 7:57 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
    > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:27:52 -0400, the following appeared
    > in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
    >
    >
    >

> >In article <proto-1EAB90.15470113042...@news.panix.com>,
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6...@4ax.com>,


    > >>  Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
    >
    > >> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    > >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    > >> > <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >
    > >> > >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >> > >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >
    > >> > >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > >> > >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >> > >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > >> > >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >
    > >> > >> > What do you mean?
    >
    > >> > >> Oh wait! It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >
    > >> > >You are so mean.
    >
    > >> > I believe her position is the median one.
    >
    > >> One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >
    > >Do Iraq up points for that?
    >
    > Only if it's your Parthian shot.
    > --
    >

I'm somehow lacking the japthetite to participate in this cascade

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/14/11 1:45 PM 	

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
    <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

    >On Apr 14, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    >> > > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    >> > >> backspace wrote:
    >> > >>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >> > >> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    >> > >> would say yes.
    >>
    >> > >> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    >> > >> have in mind?
    >>
    >> > >> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >> > >> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >> > >> a tautology?
    >>
    >> > >> David
    >>

    >> > > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>
    >> > One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    >> > is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    >> > have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >>
    >> what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >

    >The first is not normally a concept from evolutionary biology, the
    >second one is. An example for random natural selection (if we accept
    >that humans are part of nature too) would be a situation where someone
    >throws a dice to decide which animals are to be shot.  Evolution as
    >commonly understood would struggle under these conditions.

Backspace has his own interpretations and motives that are beyond ken.

However it should be noted that natural selection is still a
probabilistic process.  You may have far greater fitness than me in
any and all measures, yet you happened to walk into the water hole on
the same side as the crocodile while I was in the other side.  Too bad
about you.  That's life!

On the average, you and your kind (with the greater fitness) should
prevail, with higher probability, than me and my kind (the lower
fitness).  That is really the way natural selection works.

Of course there are genotypes with zero fitness that never develop
embryologically.  That is a different story.

Or you can be a mathematical purist (fanatic?) and define all
stochastic (i.e. probabilistic) components of contributions made to
the gene pool of the next generation as "drift" while defining the
deterministic component to be "selection" in which case selection is
by definition non-random.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/14/11 1:47 PM 	

    backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 8:28 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> On Apr 14, 2:59 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    >>>> mix blk and white marbles in a pot and do a selection at random by
    >>>> putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the
    >>>> white marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we
    >>>> have a design process
    >>
    >>> Backspace have another go at this, I have no idea what you are
    >>> trying to say and I suspect nobody else does either.
    >>
    >>> D
    >>
    >> It is rather odd that he doesn't tell us whether the whole process he
    >> describes is "random" by "only represent[ing] itself" or is a "design
    >> process" because he places the white ones on the table. Or, just
    >> perhaps, that the process involves both a random step (picking the
    >> marble from the bag without knowing its color beforehand) and a
    >> design step. If he chose metal and plastic balls instead of white
    >> and black, I wonder if the second step might be him mechanically and
    >> non- discriminantly rolling the marbles in a strong magnetic field
    >> might be entirely non-design because the human does nothing to cause
    >> the discrimination. He needs to parse what exactly in the above is
    >> pattern and what is design and why he thinks so.
    >
    > magnetism represents itself google perry marshall

periscopic paintbrushes reinvent each other lycos warbling cornflakes

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mike L 	4/14/11 2:09 PM 	

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT), backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >On Apr 14, 3:15 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:55:43 GMT, Garamond Lethe
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >> >but both Kingsley and I can recognize "subterfuges as to fact", like,
    >> >say, your wonderfully ironic attempt at a quote mine.
    >>

    >> It's one of his favourites: the Kingsley misquotation has appeared
    >> before. Kingsley, the Christian Socialist, was, of course, a supporter
    >> of Darwin. When I first caught Backspace in this act I put it down to
    >> a poor grasp of Victorian literary English; but it's now clear that
    >> his memory isn't up to the job, or that he's trying to pull a fast
    >> one.
    >
    >Osborn and Burroughs understood Darwin's chance to be absolute empire
    >of accident. See
    >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
    >
    >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs
    >
    >Osborn stated in his New York Times article 5 Aug.1922 that Darwin had
    >wrongly supposed Evolution to be a chance concept and quoted Kingsley
    >in the article. Osborn was influenced by Waagen, who held that
    >evolution is not a chance process 1899 around I think.
    >
    >What is incomprehensible is the continual insistence by Wilkins,
    >Hershey etc. that Darwin said Random: he said no such thing and did
    >not use the word, he used Chance which meant exactly what Kingsley
    >wrote to Frederick Maurice (strong theist) with 'absolute empire of
    >accident'.
    >
    >Kingsley was a gentleman , and back then it meant saying in effect
    >that the concept of God is nonsense but in a nuanced way such as '....
    >choosing between a benevolent God and chance(empire of
    >accident).....'.

I'm afraid you may be rather out of your depth.

    >
    >My point on the wiki at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology is
    >that chance, divine intervention or anything was a non-sequitur due to
    >the structural tautological flaws in their narrative from Empedocles ,
    >Aristotle to Osborn etc.

There are no linguistic or dialectical solutions to biological
problems.


    >
    >
    >
    >> BS, try this:
    >> "A celebrated author and divine has written to me that 'he has
    >> gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the
    >> Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of
    >> self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He
    >> required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the
    >> action of His laws'." That's Darwin, in the introduction to the 2nd
    >> edition of OoS. The "celebrated author and divine" was Charles
    >> Kingsley.
    >
    >Which is in plain English means theistic evolution, which YEC
    >considers as incorrect.

That at least is true. But YEC is not mainstream Christianity. You
could discuss your beliefs with some properly trained theologians and
biblical scholars.

-- 
Mike.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mike L 	4/14/11 2:14 PM 	
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:55:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:47:01 -0400, the following appeared


    >in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
    >

>>In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,


    >> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    >>> <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >>>
    >>> >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> >>

    >>> >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>> >>

    >>> >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> > What do you mean?
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >>> >
    >>> >You are so mean.
    >>>
    >>> I believe her position is the median one.
    >>
    >>One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >

    >Someone should hittite you with a stick when you babylon
    >like that.

Ur...you're troying too hard.

-- 
Mike.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/14/11 2:41 PM 	
On Apr 12, 5:08 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:43 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 1:21 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 9:59 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:


    >
    > > > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >

> > > > > No.
>
> > > > It can, but that is only one meaning. In evolutionary biology it means a
> > > > lack of correlation between fitness and mutation, as part of a general
> > > > notion that things are random when uncorrelated.
>
> > > > Words are often homonyms, and "random" is one of those. What the hearer
> > > > understands by a homonym is a bit of a crap shoot. That is to say,
> > > > random.
> > > > --
> > > > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net


    > > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

> > > biology means study of life or just life. Prof.Cleland from Nasa has
> > > show that whatever life is will be a discovery like water was
> > > discovered to be h20. until such a time one can't use the term study
> > > of life or life, you can't study something you can't define in the
> > > materialist paradigm.
>
> > How else would it be defined, except in the materialist paradigm?
>
> > I assume you eman something like this:
> > materialist = " someone who thinks that nothing exists but physical
> > matter"
> > paradigm =  "a typical example or model of something"
>
> > > therefore since you can't define life you can't claim to having a view
> > > in terms of life.
>
> > Who said life cannot be defined?
>
> nasa consulting philospher Prof. Cleland says it is not defined like
> water was not defined as h20 500 years ago, until it was discovered.

It is denoted: "Look! Life!"

In many cases it is defined more precisely, in textbooks, classrooms,
or conversations.
"For the purpose of this course/book/paper we define 'life' as..."

This is the case for many subjects; they are often older words, and
may have somewhat differing definitions from person to person, or one
generation  to the next.  This does not in any way preclude
discussion, pontificating, or study.

I do not see how the introduction of the supernatural (or whatever you
think an alternative to "materialist" would be) could possibly help.
In fact, I don't see why you think the transition of something with
one characteristic (big, lifeless, or cold) to another (small, or
filled with life, or hot) should necessarily have clear boundaries.
Perhaps you could clarify this without:
1. Referring to obscure linguistic philosophers as though they shed
light on a field of science, and
2. Insisting that people are making a semantic mistake in their use of
the word "design", therefore evolution doesn't happen.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/14/11 2:52 PM 	
On Apr 12, 5:00 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:46 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 4:59 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 6:21 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:21:00 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > > > > <snip>


    >
    > > > > > > you can't study something you can't define in the materialist
    > > > > > > paradigm.
    >

> > > > > I do this frequently, in fact more often than not. It's not hard.
>
> > > .
>
> > > > this definitions are tentative. If that thing is so and so, then it
> > > > would be observed this or that. Not always function well our intents
> > > > to define. It is little like the puzzle of why a plain exploded while
> > > > flying or suddenly went down in several seconds. We need to observe
> > > > the rests of the wreck to imagine what was the cause. But we would
> > > > never be totally sure of our conclusion.
>
> > > If one is studying something fundamental (repeatable) not a one-off
> > > like a plane crash, should clear definitions necessarily result after
> > > the study is complete?
>
> > > I ask because IC is frequently attacked because it cannot be
> > > meaningfully defined. If clear definitions are not needed is this a
> > > valid criticism?
>
> > But surely for the study of the single plane crash terms would be
> > defined precisely, as appropriate for clear understanding?
>
> > I would be satisfied if the IC people could simply *describe IC well
> > enough that independent researchers could look for it in a particular
> > object (e.g. fossil) or a process (e.g. rain). If they could describe
> > it in such a way that it could actually be measured also, that would
> > be swell. But they never do :(
>
> > Kermit
>
> true, they don't .
> Everything is in terms of designs which is the representation of
> something other than itself and patterns which only represent
> themselves. a tornado is a pattern, while a television is a design.
>
> on wikipedia the Epicureans don't define what they mean with non-
> random, pattern and design. Without their world view on this
> everything else they say natural selection, evolution is undefined,
> worse than being wrong.

Believe it or not, the Epicureans have nothing to say on quantum
physics, materials science, or evolutionary biology.

We can offer you the entire cluster of theories (there are several,
closely related) without using the word pattern or design. However, I
will not, because they are useful shorthand, and you have long since
made it clear that you are not interested in evidence, nor testable
models, but hope instead to dismiss reality with word magic.

<shrug>

You are polite enough, but you use language as a shield against the
threat of real communication.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mike L 	4/14/11 2:53 PM 	

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:04:38 -0700 (PDT), backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >On Apr 13, 9:09 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

    >> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> >test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    >> >mix blk and white marbles in a pot  and do a selection at random by
    >> >putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    >> >marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    >> >design process
    >>

    >> You do understand that the above is pure gibberish, don't you?
    >>
    >> --
    >>    --- Paul J. Gans
    >
    >yes,i am on a tablet will repost later in comprehensible
    >manner ,sorry.....
    >

Yes, strange things do happen if you don't take exactly the prescribed
dose of the tablets. But well done for getting a prescription.

-- 
Mike.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Paul J Gans 	4/14/11 5:41 PM 	
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >On Apr 14, 2:59 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >> > test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    >> > mix blk and white marbles in a pot  and do a selection at random by
    >> > putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    >> > marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    >> > design process
    >>

    >> Backspace have another go at this, I have no idea what you are trying to say
    >> and I suspect nobody else does either.
    >>
    >> D

    >It is rather odd that he doesn't tell us whether the whole process he
    >describes is "random" by "only represent[ing] itself" or is a "design
    >process" because he places the white ones on the table.  Or, just
    >perhaps, that the process involves both a random step (picking the
    >marble from the bag without knowing its color beforehand) and a design
    >step.  If he chose metal and plastic balls instead of white and black,
    >I wonder if the second step might be him mechanically and non-
    >discriminantly rolling the marbles in a strong magnetic field might be
    >entirely non-design because the human does nothing to cause the
    >discrimination.  He needs to parse what exactly in the above is
    >pattern and what is design and why he thinks so.

You can discern meaning from his writings?  I am *amazed*!

    -- 
       --- Paul J. Gans

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/14/11 7:37 PM 	
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:31:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

    > Then why are you anti-ID?

I'm anti-ID mostly because it's such piss-poor theology.  God is
constrained to be no smarter than Mike Behe (because if Behe can't come
up with a non-supernatural explanation for something Behe doesn't
understand, it follows that God must have reached the same conclusion and
done something miraculous).

Now that's an endearing little god who might find fulfilling employment
in one of the larger pantheons, but as the great I AM I'm afraid the
effect is mostly comic:  Behe has, more explicitly than most, created God
in his own image.


    >
    >> but both Kingsley and I can recognize "subterfuges as to fact", like,
    >> say, your wonderfully ironic attempt at a quote mine.
    >

    > You are the one who is quote-mining.
    >

> Ray

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Randy C 	4/14/11 7:50 PM 	

    > I'm anti-ID mostly because it's such piss-poor theology.  God is
    > constrained to be no smarter than Mike Behe (because if Behe can't come
    > up with a non-supernatural explanation for something Behe doesn't
    > understand, it follows that God must have reached the same conclusion and
    > done something miraculous).
    >
    > Now that's an endearing little god who might find fulfilling employment
    > in one of the larger pantheons, but as the great I AM I'm afraid the
    > effect is mostly comic:  Behe has, more explicitly than most, created God
    > in his own image.

That's exactly right.  The God proposed by Michael Behe is one is
required to constantly "tinker" with nature - here and there adding an
irreducibly complex component because he - God - was unable to devise
a process that would create such components naturally.

A God who was able to create the process of evolution would be smarter
and much more able than the God of Michael Behe.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/14/11 8:03 PM 	
Randy C <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a simple argument that I intend to publish on "How a Theist Can
be a pure Darwinian": Suppose God rehearsed in his mind during eternity
all the worlds he might have instantiated. Suppose he has a particular
set of utility functions, and one particular world achieves those
utility functions most effectively. In that world random variation and
selection, as well as all other physical (secondary causal) processes,
deliver what God wants. God then pours in the existential cement to make
that world exist (primary cause). The world achieves God's will, but God
does no interventions. I presume God can simulate a quantum mechanical
universe in which every quantum event is random but God chooses the
world in which all quantum events satisfy his utility functions.

Those who have read their Leibniz (and ignored the silly version of
Voltaire's satire) will understand how this works. It is an atemporal
simulation version of the "best of all possible worlds" argument, except
that it is entirely consistent with traditional Christian, Jewish and
Muslim theology.


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/14/11 8:15 PM 	
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 7:57 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:27:52 -0400, the following appeared


    >> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >> >In article <proto-1EAB90.15470113042...@news.panix.com>,
    >> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6...@4ax.com>,

    >> >>  Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
    >> >> > <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >>
    >> >> > >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> >> > >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>

    >> >> > >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> > >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> > >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >> >> > >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>
    >> >> > >> > What do you mean?
    >>
    >> >> > >> Oh wait! It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >>
    >> >> > >You are so mean.
    >>
    >> >> > I believe her position is the median one.
    >>
    >> >> One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >>

    >> >Do Iraq up points for that?
    >>
    >> Only if it's your Parthian shot.
    >> --
    >>
    >I'm somehow lacking the japthetite to participate in this cascade

You just wanted to Ham it up, brother. It's all just another Sham.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/14/11 8:50 PM 	

Econ already has a god, but if you read Arrow first, you could do an
interesting parody. Still, it will be hard to square with Christian
theology since the god you describe can be neither omniscient nor
omnipotent; he can't even hit an interest rate target and a money
supply target at the same time. Then too, the Jews are used to a
Job-ian bully, but the Christians like a loving, personal diety.
Unfortunately, if the god you propose maximizes his own utility
function, the rest of us are screwed. A commie-god probably won't play
at the University of Chicago, but he might do okay in Peoria.

If you're really going to square such a god with Christian theology,
you'll need Madison Avenue and focus groups. Lot's of focus groups.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	BarryRountree 	4/14/11 8:58 PM 	
On Apr 14, 8:03 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net


    > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

So this is going to be one of those annoying, difficult questions that
philosophy noobs ask and don't know enough to understand the answer
(or why it's the wrong question):

How does God tell the difference between the simulated existential
concrete and the real thing?

Put another way, once God has simulated a universe that produces
Psychic Paramount's "II" album, what's the point of pouring the
concrete?  It's not going to sound any better (or worse, depending on
your tastes).

The human-scaled answer would be that the simulation is inaccessible
to us:  the simulation might report that all the tracks on the album
are complete and National Public Radio loves it, but that doesn't mean
He has anything to download to his iPhone.  If you have a limited god
(one that can't solve the halting problem, say) then that's fine ---
He needs to create the world so he can catch them on Youtube.  So
wouldn't that bit contradict mainstream Protestant theology?


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/14/11 9:33 PM 	

    On Apr 14, 11:53 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:04:38 -0700 (PDT), backspace
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >On Apr 13, 9:09 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

    > >> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >> >test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    > >> >mix blk and white marbles in a pot  and do a selection at random by
    > >> >putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    > >> >marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    > >> >design process
    >

    > >> You do understand that the above is pure gibberish, don't you?
    >

    > >> --
    > >>    --- Paul J. Gans
    >

    > >yes,i am on a tablet will repost later in comprehensible
    > >manner ,sorry.....
    >
    > Yes, strange things do happen if you don't take exactly the prescribed
    > dose of the tablets. But well done for getting a prescription.
    >
    > --
    > Mike.

i meant windows 7 touch tablet with no keyboard see words like
tabletvhave no meaning now imagine the confusion we get with natural
selection


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Klaus Hellnick 	4/14/11 10:27 PM 	
On 4/13/2011 9:32 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Apr 13, 7:39 am, Vend<ven...@virgilio.it>  wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 8:23 am, r norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:15:52 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>>> <stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:


    >>>> On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >>>>> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend<ven...@virgilio.it>  wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >>>>>>> Words don't have meaning.
    >>
    >>>>>> What do you mean?
    >>
    >>>>> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no meaning.
    >>

>>>> wilkins agrees with me that words don't mean anything only ideas have
>>>> meaning within a certain context  back in 1700 it was the pattern
>>>> design dichotomy this is also where my thinking is before language
>>>> became undefined in1859
>>
>>> I well remember my great uncle describing his college years in
>>> pre-Civil War New England.  He was attending classes during his
>>> sophomore year when suddenly the professors started talking gibberish.
>>> Words no longer had any sense.
>>
>> That's what happens when you eat spoiled apatosaurus steaks.
>
> Q. How do you spoil apatosaurus?
> A. Let them eat too many ferns.
>
> What?  This stuff kills at the KT Comedy Club.
>

I thought they preferred Sequioa.
Klaus

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/15/11 12:08 AM 	
James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Econ already has a god, but if you read Arrow first, you could do an
    > interesting parody. Still, it will be hard to square with Christian
    > theology since the god you describe can be neither omniscient nor
    > omnipotent; he can't even hit an interest rate target and a money
    > supply target at the same time. Then too, the Jews are used to a
    > Job-ian bully, but the Christians like a loving, personal diety.
    > Unfortunately, if the god you propose maximizes his own utility
    > function, the rest of us are screwed. A commie-god probably won't play
    > at the University of Chicago, but he might do okay in Peoria.
    >
    > If you're really going to square such a god with Christian theology,
    > you'll need Madison Avenue and focus groups. Lot's of focus groups.

:-)


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/15/11 12:08 AM 	
BarryRountree <barry.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > On Apr 14, 8:03 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    > > Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:

...


    > > > A God who was able to create the process of evolution would be smarter
    > > > and much more able than the God of Michael Behe.
    > >
    > > I have a simple argument that I intend to publish on "How a Theist Can
    > > be a pure Darwinian": Suppose God rehearsed in his mind during eternity
    > > all the worlds he might have instantiated. Suppose he has a particular
    > > set of utility functions, and one particular world achieves those
    > > utility functions most effectively. In that world random variation and
    > > selection, as well as all other physical (secondary causal) processes,
    > > deliver what God wants. God then pours in the existential cement to make
    > > that world exist (primary cause). The world achieves God's will, but God
    > > does no interventions. I presume God can simulate a quantum mechanical
    > > universe in which every quantum event is random but God chooses the
    > > world in which all quantum events satisfy his utility functions.
    > >
    > > Those who have read their Leibniz (and ignored the silly version of
    > > Voltaire's satire) will understand how this works. It is an atemporal
    > > simulation version of the "best of all possible worlds" argument, except
    > > that it is entirely consistent with traditional Christian, Jewish and
    > > Muslim theology.
    >

    > So this is going to be one of those annoying, difficult questions that
    > philosophy noobs ask and don't know enough to understand the answer
    > (or why it's the wrong question):
    >
    > How does God tell the difference between the simulated existential
    > concrete and the real thing?
    >
    > Put another way, once God has simulated a universe that produces
    > Psychic Paramount's "II" album, what's the point of pouring the
    > concrete?  It's not going to sound any better (or worse, depending on
    > your tastes).
    >
    > The human-scaled answer would be that the simulation is inaccessible
    > to us:  the simulation might report that all the tracks on the album
    > are complete and National Public Radio loves it, but that doesn't mean
    > He has anything to download to his iPhone.  If you have a limited god
    > (one that can't solve the halting problem, say) then that's fine ---
    > He needs to create the world so he can catch them on Youtube.  So
    > wouldn't that bit contradict mainstream Protestant theology?

Theological question, not, I think, philosophical. The created world has
to be separate from God and not just in his mind. Me, I don't care.


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Walter Bushell 	4/15/11 5:40 AM 	
In article
<fb9bf7da-0037-4422-b9e0-581e546592c5@y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
 Randy C <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > I'm anti-ID mostly because it's such piss-poor theology.  God is
    > > constrained to be no smarter than Mike Behe (because if Behe can't come
    > > up with a non-supernatural explanation for something Behe doesn't
    > > understand, it follows that God must have reached the same conclusion and
    > > done something miraculous).
    > >
    > > Now that's an endearing little god who might find fulfilling employment
    > > in one of the larger pantheons, but as the great I AM I'm afraid the
    > > effect is mostly comic:  Behe has, more explicitly than most, created God
    > > in his own image.
    >
    > That's exactly right.  The God proposed by Michael Behe is one is
    > required to constantly "tinker" with nature - here and there adding an
    > irreducibly complex component because he - God - was unable to devise
    > a process that would create such components naturally.
    >

    > A God who was able to create the process of evolution would be smarter
    > and much more able than the God of Michael Behe.

But Behe's deity is very much in keeping with Bible deity, which is
pathetically small compared to the scientific story.

-- 
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/15/11 5:36 AM 	

    On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:

>>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com>  wrote:


    >>>> backspace wrote:
    >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    >>>> would say yes.
    >>
    >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    >>>> have in mind?
    >>
    >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >>>> a tautology?
    >>
    >>>> David
    >>
    >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>
    >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >

There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can
have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
called drift, not selection.

You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/15/11 5:42 AM 	
That's a good point, I'd forgotten about it. In a common-sense context
"random" usually implies not only mathematical randomness, but a uniform
probability distribution. So depending on context and word usage a
stochastic process with biased odds can be called either "random" and
"non-random".

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/15/11 6:50 AM 	

    On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

    > On the average, you and your kind (with the greater fitness) should
    > prevail, with higher probability, than me and my kind (the lower
    > fitness).  That is really the way natural selection works.

fitness <=> suitability, lets rephrase:
those with the greater fitness prevail, with higher probability, than
those with less suitability.  That is really the way we epicureans are
making society insane with our endless tautologies we associate with
the grammatical gargoyle natural selection.


    > Of course there are genotypes with zero fitness that never develop
    > embryologically.  That is a different story.

thats another tautology. The fact they don't develop embryologically
we accept, this implies they weren't fit or suitable.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/15/11 6:52 AM 	
On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:


    > On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    > >>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com>  wrote:
    > >>>> backspace wrote:
    > >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    > >>>> would say yes.
    >
    > >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    > >>>> have in mind?
    >
    > >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > >>>> a tautology?
    >
    > >>>> David
    >
    > >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    > >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    > >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    > >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >

    > There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can
    > have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    > which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    > called drift, not selection.
    >
    > You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.

lets map :  natural<=>preferential,   selection <=> decision.

Is there such a thing as a preferential decision? this was discussed
in the thread 'automated selection and randomness' for two months with
dr. howard Hershey.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/15/11 5:48 AM 	
Jesus, you people have noah shem.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/15/11 6:05 AM 	

Why ? What does "preferential decision" mean, what does it have to do
with natural selection, and how does "natural" map to "preferential" in
that context ? "natural" is a statement on what is causing the
selection, "preferential" says nothing about what causes the decision.


    >
    > Is there such a thing as a preferential decision?

Oh, so you don't know either ? Why are you bringing this up then ?

    > this was discussed
    > in the thread 'automated selection and randomness' for two months with
    > dr. howard Hershey.
    >

I didn't follow that one, and quick googling shows me this quote by said
Dr. Hershey : "No.  Your dishonest equation of 'natural selection' with
'preferential decision' where 'natural' equals 'preferential' and
'selection' equals 'decision' has been thoroughly dissected."

I'll take Dr. Hershey's word for it.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/15/11 9:45 AM 	
On Apr 14, 9:33 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:53 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:04:38 -0700 (PDT), backspace


    >
    > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >On Apr 13, 9:09 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
    > > >> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >> >test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    > > >> >mix blk and white marbles in a pot and do a selection at random by
    > > >> >putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the white
    > > >> >marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we have a
    > > >> >design process
    >
    > > >> You do understand that the above is pure gibberish, don't you?
    >
    > > >> --
    > > >> --- Paul J. Gans
    >
    > > >yes,i am on a tablet will repost later in comprehensible
    > > >manner ,sorry.....
    >
    > > Yes, strange things do happen if you don't take exactly the prescribed
    > > dose of the tablets. But well done for getting a prescription.
    >
    > > --
    > > Mike.
    >
    > i meant windows 7 touch tablet with no keyboard see words like
    > tabletvhave no meaning now imagine the confusion we get with natural
    > selection

So your argument is that evolution doesn't happen because Touch
Tablets have limited linguistic abilities?

Also: you're the only one confused about common word usage.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mark Isaak 	4/15/11 10:02 AM 	

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:31:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

    > On Apr 13, 11:55 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>[...]


    >> <blockquote>
    >> To Rev. F.D. Maurice
    >>
    >> "I am very busy working out points of Natural Theology, by the strange
    >> light of Huxley, Darwin and Lyell.  I   think I shall come to
    >> something worth having before I have done.  But I am not going to rush
    >> into print this seven years, for this reason:  The state of the
    >> scientific mind is most curious;  Darwin is conquering everywhere, and
    >> rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact.  The one
    >> or two who hold out are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to
    >> fact, or else by evoking the /odium theologicum/.... But they find
    >> that now they have got rid of an interfering God --- a master-magician,
    >> as I call it --- they have to choose between the absolute empire of
    >> accident, and a living, immanent, ever-working God.   </blockquote>
    >>
    >> _Charles Kingsley, His Letters, and Memories of His Life, Vol. 2_.  p
    >> 175.
    >>
    >> I don't see anything wrong with a "living, immanent, ever-working God",
    >
    > Then why are you anti-ID?

It requires that God be evil.

-- 
 Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
 honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
 pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/15/11 10:02 AM 	

    On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:42:13 +0100, Arkalen <ski...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >On 14/04/11 21:45, r norman wrote:

>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>> <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:


    >>
    >>> On Apr 14, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    >>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>> backspace wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    >>>>>>> would say yes.
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    >>>>>>> have in mind?
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >>>>>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >>>>>>> a tautology?
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> David
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>>>
    >>>>> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    >>>>> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    >>>>> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >>>>
    >>>> what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >>>

    >>> The first is not normally a concept from evolutionary biology, the
    >>> second one is. An example for random natural selection (if we accept
    >>> that humans are part of nature too) would be a situation where someone
    >>> throws a dice to decide which animals are to be shot.  Evolution as
    >>> commonly understood would struggle under these conditions.
    >>
    >> Backspace has his own interpretations and motives that are beyond ken.
    >>
    >> However it should be noted that natural selection is still a
    >> probabilistic process.  You may have far greater fitness than me in
    >> any and all measures, yet you happened to walk into the water hole on
    >> the same side as the crocodile while I was in the other side.  Too bad
    >> about you.  That's life!
    >>

    >> On the average, you and your kind (with the greater fitness) should
    >> prevail, with higher probability, than me and my kind (the lower
    >> fitness).  That is really the way natural selection works.
    >>

    >> Of course there are genotypes with zero fitness that never develop
    >> embryologically.  That is a different story.
    >>

    >> Or you can be a mathematical purist (fanatic?) and define all
    >> stochastic (i.e. probabilistic) components of contributions made to
    >> the gene pool of the next generation as "drift" while defining the
    >> deterministic component to be "selection" in which case selection is
    >> by definition non-random.
    >>
    >That's a good point, I'd forgotten about it. In a common-sense context
    >"random" usually implies not only mathematical randomness, but a uniform
    >probability distribution. So depending on context and word usage a
    >stochastic process with biased odds can be called either "random" and
    >"non-random".

Some people do make that silly connection between "random" and
"uniformly distributed" but then go on to say that a roll of a pair of
dice is random when the result is distinctly skewed or say that a
poker hand is random and then talk about the odds of a particular
holding.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/15/11 10:06 AM 	

    On Apr 15, 6:50 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
    >

    > > On the average, you and your kind (with the greater fitness) should
    > > prevail, with higher probability, than me and my kind (the lower
    > > fitness). That is really the way natural selection works.
    >

    > fitness <=> suitability, lets rephrase:
    > those with the greater fitness prevail, with higher probability, than
    > those with less suitability. That is really the way we epicureans are
    > making society insane with our endless tautologies we associate with
    > the grammatical gargoyle natural selection.

No, no tautologies.

Fitness is not synonymous with greater reproductive success.

Reproductive success conceivably could be:
1. Associated with a phenotype "fit" for the environment (e.g.
survival or sexual attractiveness).
2. Completely random. It's difficult to imagine what the mechanism or
process would be for this; perhaps the capriciousness of a God, or the
Great Programmer of our (virtual) reality.
3. There could be an archetype, which members of s species reverts to,
and cannot stray from. Many Creationists believe this.
4. A reward or punishment for moral decisions.
5. It could have been that there actually was no difference in
reproductive success among individuals; it was an error in observation
and measurement.

These are all conceivable, and several have been proposed.

As it is, the evidence indicates that:
1. There is differential reproductive success,
2. It is strongly linked to fitness of a particular organism and its
fitness to the environment, and
3. This encourages or discourages the spread or particular alleles
throughout the gene pool.

    >
    > > Of course there are genotypes with zero fitness that never develop
    > > embryologically. That is a different story.
    >

    > thats another tautology. The fact they don't develop embryologically
    > we accept, this implies they weren't fit or suitable.

Very similar alternative logical possibilities apply as above.
Successful development could have been entirely random, for example,
but it is strongly tied to healthy and normal phenotype (of both
parents and offspring).

Not a tautology at all.

For instance some would say that your inability to understand this is
evidence for your being simple-minded, and you might object, claiming
that this is tautological and therefore meaningless.

This would be a specious and incorrect claim.

First, tautologies can provide information - definitions may use
words, images, or other associations which allow the hearer or reader
to understand, when he did not before. To deny this  is to deny the
usefulness of dictionaries.

Second, it is not a tautology.  You could be unable to understand
because:
1. You are, indeed, simply simple-minded.
2. You are emotionally incapable of understanding a concept which
causes you emotional distress.
3. You are practicing some sort of word magic, in which you hope that
if you continue to deny it, it will go away.
4. You are acting in the belief that dishonest achieves some greater
good. Some creationists seem to act as though lying for Jesus is a
virtue; if someone is convinced that evolutionary biology is wrong,
they will embrace Jesus, and that greater good justifies the telling
of a white lie.
5. You are a troll, pathologically compelled to fan the flames, but
understand the concept quite well.
6. You are a clever AI program, responding in a way to posts
responding to you, but not really interacting cognitively.

Kermit


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mark Isaak 	4/15/11 10:22 AM 	
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:55:21 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:47:01 -0400, the following appeared in


    > talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
    >

>>In article <3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,


    >> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in
    >>> talk.origins, posted by Vend <ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >>>
    >>> >On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> >> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> > On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> >>

    >>> >> > > On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >>> >>

    >>> >> > > Words don't have meaning.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> > What do you mean?
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no
    >>> >> meaning.
    >>> >
    >>> >You are so mean.
    >>>
    >>> I believe her position is the median one.
    >>
    >>One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >

> Someone should hittite you with a stick when you babylon like that.

He really is akkad, isn't he?

    -- 
     Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
    "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
     honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
     pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/15/11 10:20 AM 	

    On Apr 15, 6:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    > > >>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    > > >>>> backspace wrote:
    > > >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    > > >>>> would say yes.
    >
    > > >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    > > >>>> have in mind?
    >
    > > >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > >>>> a tautology?
    >
    > > >>>> David
    >
    > > >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    > > >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    > > >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    > > >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > > > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >

    > > There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can
    > > have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    > > which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    > > called drift, not selection.
    >
    > > You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.
    >
    > lets map :  natural<=>preferential,   selection <=> decision.

No, let's map
natural = not human
selection = filtered by circumstances

So, evolution is largely (but not completely) the accumulated results
of some organisms more successfully reproducing than others in the
gene pool because of their phenotype (and luck), interacting with
their immediate environment.

>
> Is there such a thing as a preferential decision? this was discussed


    > in the thread 'automated selection and randomness' for two months with
    > dr. howard Hershey.

No.

But there is natural selection.

Kermit


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/15/11 10:35 AM 	

    On Apr 15, 8:36 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    > >>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com>  wrote:
    > >>>> backspace wrote:
    > >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    > >>>> would say yes.
    >
    > >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    > >>>> have in mind?
    >
    > >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > >>>> a tautology?
    >
    > >>>> David
    >
    > >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    > >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    > >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    > >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >
    > There is no such thing as random natural selection.

As, of course, would be evident it one understood the reason why the
word "selection" was used.

    > I suppose you can
    > have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    > which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    > called drift, not selection.

No need to "suppose" selective neutrality.  It does exist and does
lead to drift via a random walk.


    >
    > You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.

In backspace's, this should be "You are confused." with no need for
further qualifiers.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mitchell Coffey 	4/15/11 10:38 AM 	

    On 4/15/2011 1:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:55:21 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:47:01 -0400, the following appeared in
    >> talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
    >>
    >>> In article<3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
    >>> Bob Casanova<nospam@buzz.off>  wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in
    >>>> talk.origins, posted by Vend<ven...@virgilio.it>:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend<ven...@virgilio.it>  wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Words don't have meaning.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> What do you mean?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no
    >>>>>> meaning.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You are so mean.
    >>>>
    >>>> I believe her position is the median one.
    >>>
    >>> One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    >>
    >> Someone should hittite you with a stick when you babylon like that.
    >
    > He really is akkad, isn't he?

If ur going to go on like this we'll come to a parthian of the ways, if
not this Spring, next Sumer.

Mitchell Coffey


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/15/11 11:04 AM 	

    On Apr 15, 9:50 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > > On the average, you and your kind (with the greater fitness) should
    > > prevail, with higher probability, than me and my kind (the lower
    > > fitness). That is really the way natural selection works.
    >
    > fitness <=> suitability, lets rephrase:
    > those with the greater fitness prevail, with higher probability, than
    > those with less suitability.

Indeed, that is how we define and measure greater relative fitness or
benficial fitness. Empirically, greater fitness is defined as and
measured on some meteric of an increase in relative reproductive
success  If you prefer to assert that we should really consider the
alternative, that greater fitness should be ascribed to phenotypes
that never reproduce (lethal or completely sterile) or are less
reproductively successful relative to another alternate phenotype, you
certainly can do so.  But there are only three options available: 1)
Phenotype A is significantly poorer on the metric of reproductive
success than phenotype a. 2) Phenotype A is significantly better on
the metric of reproductive success than phenotype a. And 3) there is
no significant difference between phenotype A and phenotype a on the
metric of reproductive success.  That is, the metric of reproductive
success is always a line with both positive and negative numbers and a
fuzzy zero point.

Most sane and rational people (excepting only those that are suicidal,
are part of a death cult, or a cult that values chastity and
reproductive abstinence above all else, not only for humans but for
all living things) would regard being less fit as desirable from the
point of view of a population's non-extinction or extinction.  [We
humans may *want* to drive some species to extinction, and we
certainly have been successful at it even when that was not our
intention, but few of us deny that reproduction and thus non-
extinction is the one and only universal feature from the perspective
of a species.]  So which sort of crazy are you?  Do you regard death
and non-reproduction to be "good" goals you think the human species
should strive for?  Because you are indeed claiming that is the case
when you disagree with the idea that increased reproductive success or
increased fitness is a "good" that can accurately be defined as "more
suitable" in a given environment.  Note that even if you think what
most biologists consider as "good" is really "bad", all you are doing
is inverting the features you consider to be "beneficial" relative to
what biologists consider to be "beneficial".  Is that what you mean or
want?  Note that you will *still* have the same two possibilities or A
being reproductively successful or not successful relative to a and
the same possibility of selective neutrality and whatever you call it,
you will not change the relationship in any measurement.  You would
just be saying that earlier death or reproductive failure is what you
consider to be "good" or "beneficial".  And on that you differ from
biologists, who consider earlier death or reproductive failure to be
"detrimental" or "deleterious".  IOW, when biologists say "black", you
say "white".

    > That is really the way we epicureans are
    > making society insane with our endless tautologies we associate with
    > the grammatical gargoyle natural selection.

No tautology.  Just a commonly accepted definition of "beneficial" and
"detrimental" used in the same way that most sane people use those
terms.


    >
    > > Of course there are genotypes with zero fitness that never develop
    > > embryologically. That is a different story.
    >
    > thats another tautology. The fact they don't develop embryologically
    > we accept, this implies they weren't fit or suitable.

By the biologist's definition of "fit" or "suitable", the mean earlier
death of organisms with an embryologically lethal phenotype does
indeed mean that on the metric of reproductive success, organisms with
that phenotype are less successful than organisms with the alternative
phenotype.  Are you saying that, by *your* definition of "fit" or
"suitable" that the earlier death of organisms with a embryologically
lethal trait is what you consider to be good?


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/15/11 11:17 AM 	
On Apr 15, 9:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    > > >>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    > > >>>> backspace wrote:
    > > >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    > > >>>> would say yes.
    >
    > > >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    > > >>>> have in mind?
    >
    > > >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > >>>> a tautology?
    >
    > > >>>> David
    >
    > > >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    > > >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    > > >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    > > >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > > > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >

> > There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can


    > > have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    > > which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    > > called drift, not selection.
    >

    > > You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.
    >

    > lets map :  natural<=>preferential,   selection <=> decision.

"Natural", in this case, means "in the absence of human action" or
"existing in or formed by nature".  As opposed to "artificial" in this
case.   There is no connection or map at all that relates "natural"
and "preferential".  Note that this is the very first definition of
"natural".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

Sometimes the word "natural" means "having a real or physical
existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual,
fictitious, etc."  See definiition 8.  In that sense, even selection
designed by humans, or "artificial selection" is "natural."

The word "selection" in the phrase "natural selection" only implies
that a discriminative or a differential *outcome* has occurred because
of some property of the natural environment, not that some entity has
made a choice by virtue of its decision making ability.  It is used in
the same sense that one can say that that the pattern of magnetism
(you have already described "magnetism" a process which is 'pattern'
rather than 'design' in your odd world) is to *selectively* attract
certain metals and not other objects. That is, there is a differential
*outcome* when the pattern process of magnetism is applied to a
mixture of iron and most glass.

    > Is there such a thing as a preferential decision? this was discussed
    > in the thread 'automated selection and randomness' for two months with
    > dr. howard Hershey.

You were equally ignorant two months ago.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Randy C 	4/15/11 11:56 AM 	

    > > Then why are you anti-ID?
    >
    > It requires that God be evil.

Don't forget about God being incompetent and deceptive as well if ID
is true.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Christopher Denney 	4/15/11 12:15 PM 	

    > Is there such a thing as a preferential decision? this was discussed
    > in the thread 'automated selection and randomness' for two months with
    > dr. howard Hershey.

Let's map Natural to Coffee and Selection to Ice Cream.
I like Coffee Ice Cream, so I must like natural selection too.

See I can "map" random words to other words too.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Christopher Denney 	4/15/11 12:51 PM 	

    On Apr 14, 10:58 pm, BarryRountree <barry.rount...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 8:03 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > I'm anti-ID mostly because it's such piss-poor theology. God is
    > > > > constrained to be no smarter than Mike Behe (because if Behe can't come
    > > > > up with a non-supernatural explanation for something Behe doesn't
    > > > > understand, it follows that God must have reached the same conclusion and
    > > > > done something miraculous).
    >
    > > > > Now that's an endearing little god who might find fulfilling employment
    > > > > in one of the larger pantheons, but as the great I AM I'm afraid the
    > > > > effect is mostly comic: Behe has, more explicitly than most, created God
    > > > > in his own image.
    >
    > > > That's exactly right. The God proposed by Michael Behe is one is
    > > > required to constantly "tinker" with nature - here and there adding an
    > > > irreducibly complex component because he - God - was unable to devise
    > > > a process that would create such components naturally.
    >
    > > > A God who was able to create the process of evolution would be smarter
    > > > and much more able than the God of Michael Behe.
    >

    > > I have a simple argument that I intend to publish on "How a Theist Can
    > > be a pure Darwinian": Suppose God rehearsed in his mind during eternity
    > > all the worlds he might have instantiated. Suppose he has a particular
    > > set of utility functions, and one particular world achieves those
    > > utility functions most effectively. In that world random variation and
    > > selection, as well as all other physical (secondary causal) processes,
    > > deliver what God wants. God then pours in the existential cement to make
    > > that world exist (primary cause). The world achieves God's will, but God
    > > does no interventions. I presume God can simulate a quantum mechanical
    > > universe in which every quantum event is random but God chooses the
    > > world in which all quantum events satisfy his utility functions.
    >
    > > Those who have read their Leibniz (and ignored the silly version of
    > > Voltaire's satire) will understand how this works. It is an atemporal
    > > simulation version of the "best of all possible worlds" argument, except
    > > that it is entirely consistent with traditional Christian, Jewish and
    > > Muslim theology.

> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net


    > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
    > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >

    > So this is going to be one of those annoying, difficult questions that
    > philosophy noobs ask and don't know enough to understand the answer
    > (or why it's the wrong question):
    >
    > How does God tell the difference between the simulated existential
    > concrete and the real thing?

God could tell the difference, it is god after all; I think we'd be
the one's who couldn't tell the difference.
Some folks assert the universe IS a simulation.
I'd have to disagree, I don't think the universe could be simulated in
anything less than a universe.
I think there's a book on that subject in the Sci-Fi section.

[snip]

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Christopher Denney 	4/15/11 12:56 PM 	
On Apr 14, 3:47 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 8:28 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:


    > >> On Apr 14, 2:59 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>>> test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself .
    > >>>> mix blk and white marbles in a pot and do a selection at random by
    > >>>> putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the
    > >>>> white marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we
    > >>>> have a design process
    >

> >>> Backspace have another go at this, I have no idea what you are
> >>> trying to say and I suspect nobody else does either.
>
> >>> D
>
> >> It is rather odd that he doesn't tell us whether the whole process he
> >> describes is "random" by "only represent[ing] itself" or is a "design
> >> process" because he places the white ones on the table. Or, just
> >> perhaps, that the process involves both a random step (picking the
> >> marble from the bag without knowing its color beforehand) and a
> >> design step. If he chose metal and plastic balls instead of white
> >> and black, I wonder if the second step might be him mechanically and
> >> non- discriminantly rolling the marbles in a strong magnetic field
> >> might be entirely non-design because the human does nothing to cause
> >> the discrimination. He needs to parse what exactly in the above is
> >> pattern and what is design and why he thinks so.
>
> > magnetism represents itself google perry marshall
>
> periscopic paintbrushes reinvent each other lycos warbling cornflakes

I would've said:
Periscopic paintbrushes reinvent every other lycos warbling cornflake.
but I expect is less BS-y that way

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mitchell Coffey 	4/15/11 1:32 PM 	
On 4/14/2011 11:50 PM, James Beck wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:03:31 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
>> Randy C<randy...@gmail.com>  wrote:

    > Econ already has a god, but if you read Arrow first, you could do an
    > interesting parody. Still, it will be hard to square with Christian
    > theology since the god you describe can be neither omniscient nor
    > omnipotent; he can't even hit an interest rate target and a money
    > supply target at the same time. Then too, the Jews are used to a
    > Job-ian bully, but the Christians like a loving, personal diety.
    > Unfortunately, if the god you propose maximizes his own utility
    > function, the rest of us are screwed. A commie-god probably won't play
    > at the University of Chicago, but he might do okay in Peoria.
    >
    > If you're really going to square such a god with Christian theology,
    > you'll need Madison Avenue and focus groups. Lot's of focus groups.

OK, I'm still digesting your last reply to me, but explain your Arrow
notion. I've read (some of) Arrow; I've even met Arrow: Arrow himself
might be God, but for the Stanford connection. But I don't get your
reference.

I assume Wilkins' utility function thing collides with Arrow, but I'm
still not sure what you mean.

Mitchell Coffey


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Ray Martinez 	4/15/11 1:57 PM 	

    On Apr 14, 7:37 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:31:26 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Apr 13, 11:55 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:33:22 -0700, backspace wrote:
> >> > On Apr 14, 12:34 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >> >> Yes they can, and mutations can be correlated with fitness (the
> >> >> usual example is the biased mutation of bacteria under stress,
> >> >> although while the mutation sites are biased, the mutations
> >> >> themselves appear not to be). But that is not what I was aiming at.
> >> >> The *class* "mutation" and the *class" fitness are independent of
> >> >> each other and when popular scientists and philosophers including
> >> >> Darwin say that variation is random
>
> >> > He said no such thing, only used the word chance in OoS , no mention
> >> > of random. Charles Kingsley interpreted darwin as '''...absolute
> >> > empire of accident....'''


    >
    > >> <blockquote>
    > >> To Rev. F.D. Maurice
    >
    > >> "I am very busy working out points of Natural Theology, by the strange
    > >> light of Huxley, Darwin and Lyell.  I think I shall come to something
    > >> worth having before I have done.  But I am not going to rush into print
    > >> this seven years, for this reason:  The state of the scientific mind is
    > >> most curious;  Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a
    > >> flood, by the mere force of truth and fact.  The one or two who hold
    > >> out are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or else by
    > >> evoking the /odium theologicum/.... But they find that now they have
    > >> got rid of an interfering God --- a master-magician, as I call it ---
    > >> they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident, and a
    > >> living, immanent, ever-working God.
    > >> </blockquote>
    >
    > >> _Charles Kingsley, His Letters, and Memories of His Life, Vol. 2_.  p
    > >> 175.
    >
    > >> I don't see anything wrong with a "living, immanent, ever-working God",
    >

    > > Then why are you anti-ID?
    >

    > I'm anti-ID mostly because it's such piss-poor theology.  God is
    > constrained to be no smarter than Mike Behe (because if Behe can't come
    > up with a non-supernatural explanation for something Behe doesn't
    > understand, it follows that God must have reached the same conclusion and
    > done something miraculous).
    >
    > Now that's an endearing little god who might find fulfilling employment
    > in one of the larger pantheons, but as the great I AM I'm afraid the
    > effect is mostly comic:  Behe has, more explicitly than most, created God
    > in his own image.
    >

Behe accepts micro/macroevolution, common descent, human evolution and
limited natural selection. He is an Evolutionist. And we know you are
an Evolutionist too, Garamond. Where did you obtain the idea that
evolution supports "living, immanent, ever-working God" (your words)?
Behe believes the exact same thing: evolution is the work of God
(invisible IDer). I thought modern science says no evidence of God
exists? Your anger toward Behe is unfounded. Since you believe the
same as he does (evolution = work of God) basic psychology teaches us
that your disdain for him is because he reminds you of something about
yourself that you do not like.

What is apparent is that you are incredibly confused. You think a guy
who accepts every major claim of Darwinism is an IDist and you think
evolution supports the existence of God. Worst of all, you are
completely unaware of your state : )

Objective facts (straight thinking): IDists do not support Darwinism
and Darwinists do not support IDism; modern science says no evidence
of God exists therefore evolution is not evidence supporting the
existence of God. If evolution supported the existence of God,
Atheists would not support evolution.

Ray


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Ray Martinez 	4/15/11 2:33 PM 	

    > "Natural", in this case, means "in the absence of human action" or
    > "existing in or formed by nature".  

As ridiculous as it gets: nobody ever argued that humans produced the
inhabitants of nature!

In this case "natural" means "non-supernatural" or "without
Intelligence."

So much for your education and degree, Howard. You don't understand
the most basic claim of natural selection (absence of God; nature
itself is doing the "creating").

    > As opposed to "artificial" in this
    > case.   There is no connection or map at all that relates "natural"
    > and "preferential".  Note that this is the very first definition of
    > "natural".
    >
    > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
    >

General Audience:

Howard Hershey supposedly has a doctorate, yet here he is using a
general source (Dictionary.com) to support his fundamental
misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. Darwinism opposes Creationism-
ID (Darwin 1859:6); it is not arguing against human intervention, but
Divine intervention. Again, no one ever argued that human beings
created nature! Darwin is saying that Nature behaves like artificial
breeders, minus the intelligence (supernatural intelligence). It
simply does not get anymore embarrassing. Now our doctorate will dig
in his heels and defend his egregious misunderstanding. Fine with me.
I have always said that ordinary Darwinists are incredibly stupid and
unread.

Ray

    > Sometimes the word "natural" means "having a real or physical
    > existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual,
    > fictitious, etc."  See definiition 8.  In that sense, even selection
    > designed by humans, or "artificial selection" is "natural."
    >
    > The word "selection" in the phrase "natural selection" only implies
    > that a discriminative or a differential *outcome* has occurred because
    > of some property of the natural environment, not that some entity has
    > made a choice by virtue of its decision making ability.  It is used in
    > the same sense that one can say that that the pattern of magnetism
    > (you have already described "magnetism" a process which is 'pattern'
    > rather than 'design' in your odd world) is to *selectively* attract
    > certain metals and not other objects. That is, there is a differential
    > *outcome* when the pattern process of magnetism is applied to a
    > mixture of iron and most glass.
    >

    > > Is there such a thing as a preferential decision? this was discussed
    > > in the thread 'automated selection and randomness' for two months with
    > > dr. howard Hershey.
    >

> You were equally ignorant two months ago.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/15/11 2:49 PM 	

They did, though. A few of them. Well, they applied the selection
pressure that led those inhabitants to evolve into the creatures they
are today at least.
Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/15/11 6:01 PM 	
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:51:54 -0700, Christopher Denney wrote:

> On Apr 14, 10:58 pm, BarryRountree <barry.rount...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 8:03 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:


    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > > > I'm anti-ID mostly because it's such piss-poor theology. God is
    >> > > > constrained to be no smarter than Mike Behe (because if Behe
    >> > > > can't come up with a non-supernatural explanation for something
    >> > > > Behe doesn't understand, it follows that God must have reached
    >> > > > the same conclusion and done something miraculous).
    >>
    >> > > > Now that's an endearing little god who might find fulfilling
    >> > > > employment in one of the larger pantheons, but as the great I AM
    >> > > > I'm afraid the effect is mostly comic: Behe has, more explicitly
    >> > > > than most, created God in his own image.
    >>

    >> > > That's exactly right. The God proposed by Michael Behe is one is
    >> > > required to constantly "tinker" with nature - here and there adding
    >> > > an irreducibly complex component because he - God - was unable to
    >> > > devise a process that would create such components naturally.
    >>
    >> > > A God who was able to create the process of evolution would be
    >> > > smarter and much more able than the God of Michael Behe.
    >>
    >> > I have a simple argument that I intend to publish on "How a Theist
    >> > Can be a pure Darwinian": Suppose God rehearsed in his mind during
    >> > eternity all the worlds he might have instantiated. Suppose he has a
    >> > particular set of utility functions, and one particular world
    >> > achieves those utility functions most effectively. In that world
    >> > random variation and selection, as well as all other physical
    >> > (secondary causal) processes, deliver what God wants. God then pours
    >> > in the existential cement to make that world exist (primary cause).
    >> > The world achieves God's will, but God does no interventions. I
    >> > presume God can simulate a quantum mechanical universe in which every
    >> > quantum event is random but God chooses the world in which all
    >> > quantum events satisfy his utility functions.
    >>
    >> > Those who have read their Leibniz (and ignored the silly version of
    >> > Voltaire's satire) will understand how this works. It is an atemporal
    >> > simulation version of the "best of all possible worlds" argument,
    >> > except that it is entirely consistent with traditional Christian,
    >> > Jewish and Muslim theology.

    >> > --
    >> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
    >> > Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a
    >> > philosophre,
    >> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
    >>
    >> So this is going to be one of those annoying, difficult questions that
    >> philosophy noobs ask and don't know enough to understand the answer (or
    >> why it's the wrong question):
    >>
    >> How does God tell the difference between the simulated existential
    >> concrete and the real thing?
    >
    > God could tell the difference, it is god after all; I think we'd be the
    > one's who couldn't tell the difference. Some folks assert the universe
    > IS a simulation. I'd have to disagree, I don't think the universe could
    > be simulated in anything less than a universe.

Ah, but if it's a good simulation you don't see to simulate all of the
universe --- just the observable bits.  

    > I think there's a book on that subject in the Sci-Fi section.
    >
    > [snip]

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/15/11 6:03 PM 	

    On 4/15/11 3:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
    > On Apr 15, 11:17 am, hersheyh<hershe...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

snip


    >> "Natural", in this case, means "in the absence of human action" or
    >> "existing in or formed by nature".
    >
    > As ridiculous as it gets:

Yes, Ray, your claims are ridiculous.

    > nobody ever argued that humans produced the
    > inhabitants of nature!

Actually, most people know that humans have influenced the development
of some 'inhabitants of nature'   Darwin was a pigeon breeder.  Farmers
have been breeding crops and animals for specific traits for thousands
of years.


    >
    > In this case "natural" means "non-supernatural" or "without
    > Intelligence."

Wrong again, Ray.   Darwin's term "natural selection" was to contrast
with artificial selection carried out by humans.   The idea of the
supernatural was never considered to be scientific.

    >
    > So much for your education and degree, Howard.

Because he's right, and you, Ray are wrong?


    > You don't understand
    > the most basic claim of natural selection (absence of God; nature
    > itself is doing the "creating").

The "most basic" claim of natural selection is not "absence of God".
Nature is the collection of natural laws and processes.  Why do you
imagine God can't be behind that?

    >
    >> As opposed to "artificial" in this
    >> case.   There is no connection or map at all that relates "natural"
    >> and "preferential".  Note that this is the very first definition of
    >> "natural".
    >>
    >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
    >>
    >
    > General Audience:

Note, Ray is going to say something very silly here.  Whenever he
addresses the 'General Audience", it's a signal that Ray is going to
offer his unsupported, and absurd opinion.

    >
    > Howard Hershey supposedly has a doctorate, yet here he is using a
    > general source (Dictionary.com) to support his fundamental
    > misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution.

the "general dictionary" is of course correct, and it's Ray who
misunderstands evolution.


    > Darwinism opposes Creationism-
    > ID (Darwin 1859:6);

No, evolution explains the evidence without appeal to the supernatural,
like any scientific theory.

    > it is not arguing against human intervention,

No one ever said it did.  Darwin used examples of human intervention to
show how natural selection operated.

> but
> Divine intervention.

"Divine intervention" was recognized as religious, not scientific.


    > Again, no one ever argued that human beings
    > created nature!


but human beings have had a hand in creating the domestic animals and
plants that humans depend on for food.    That's why there was a
differentiation between natural, and artificial selection.  Both are
selection, but only one takes place without human input.


    > Darwin is saying that Nature behaves like artificial
    > breeders, minus the intelligence (supernatural intelligence).

Actually, minus the human element.  Science doesn't try to study
"supernatural" things.


    > It
    > simply does not get anymore embarrassing.

So, Ray, why aren't you embarrassed to be demonstrating your own
ignorance here?


    > Now our doctorate will dig
    > in his heels and defend his egregious misunderstanding.

But it's not his misunderstanding, Ray.  It's yours


    > Fine with me.
    > I have always said that ordinary Darwinists are incredibly stupid and
    > unread.

But you keep showing that it's you who is stupid and unread.


DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/15/11 6:50 PM 	

You might ask your self why, Ray.

> He is an Evolutionist.

Unless you want him supporting your cause...

    > And we know you are
    > an Evolutionist too, Garamond. Where did you obtain the idea that
    > evolution supports "living, immanent, ever-working God" (your words)?

 From his own experiences, probably.

    > Behe believes the exact same thing: evolution is the work of God
    > (invisible IDer). I thought modern science says no evidence of God
    > exists?

You, Ray claim that it does, yet you've never been able to present any
of that evidence.


    > Your anger toward Behe is unfounded.

what 'anger'?


    > Since you believe the
    > same as he does (evolution = work of God) basic psychology teaches us
    > that your disdain for him is because he reminds you of something about
    > yourself that you do not like.


this is why Ray fails psychology as badly as he fails at logic.

    >
    > What is apparent is that you are incredibly confused.

How is that apparent, Ray?


    > You think a guy
    > who accepts every major claim of Darwinism is an IDist and you think
    > evolution supports the existence of God. Worst of all, you are
    > completely unaware of your state : )

Everyone else seems to agree that Behe is an "IDist".   You seem to be
exhibiting confusion of your own, Ray.


>
> Objective facts (straight thinking):

Two things Ray knows little, or nothing about.....


    > IDists do not support Darwinism
    > and Darwinists do not support IDism;

"IDists" support anything that they think will further their agenda.


    > modern science says no evidence
    > of God exists therefore evolution is not evidence supporting the
    > existence of God.

Ray, the existence of God is a religious belief, not a scientific idea.
   Evolution is not evidence supporting the existence of God, but
there's no reason someone who believes in God has to reject the science
of evolution.

    > If evolution supported the existence of God,
    > Atheists would not support evolution.

Whatever atheists do, or don't support is irrelevant to the science of
evolution.   Evolution doesn't support the existence of God, and it
doesn't refute the existence of God.   God's existence is totally
independent of the fact of evolution.


DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/15/11 7:17 PM 	

    On Apr 15, 1:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 7:37 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

    > Behe accepts micro/macroevolution, common descent, human evolution and

> limited natural selection. He is an Evolutionist.

As I was discussing his theology I'm not sure what that's relevant,
but ok, call him an evolutionist.

    > And we know you are
    > an Evolutionist too, Garamond.

Yes, but with one very important distinction:  I don't instruct God as
to His limitations.

    > Where did you obtain the idea that
    > evolution supports "living, immanent, ever-working God" (your words)?

Charles Kingsley's words, actually --- that's why they were in
quotation marks.  But I agree with them.

As to the idea:  I spent lots of quality time with biologists who are
Quakers, Catholics, Jewish folks of various levels of orthodoxy,
Buddhists, and a few Pagans.  None of them would have any problem with
"living" and "immanent", and while a few might quibble with "ever-
working" I think they would accept the description in the spirit in
which it was offered.

In short:  I got the idea from professional evolutionists.

    > Behe believes the exact same thing: evolution is the work of God
    > (invisible IDer). I thought modern science says no evidence of God
    > exists?

I've read more than my share of science books but I can't ever
remember running across that.  Not to say that it's never been said:
scientists (like theologians) will occasionally say silly things.  But
at last count I know more theistic biologists than atheistic
biologists, and they certainly haven't gotten the memo.

    > Your anger toward Behe is unfounded.

Oh, I'm not angry at him at all.  There's a lot of pity --- he had a
decent research career and that's all been forgotten now.  It's also a
cautionary tale of what can happen when you're not willing to give up
on a bad idea.

    > Since you believe the
    > same as he does (evolution = work of God)

I'm an indexed agnostic, btw.  There are gods I know don't exist, gods
that I don't know whether they exist or not, and gods that I know I
can't know whether they exist or not.  It's a bit wordy for a bumper
sticker, but it works for me.

    > basic psychology teaches us
    > that your disdain for him is because he reminds you of something about
    > yourself that you do not like.

Certainly.  There are crackpots in every field and they didn't start
their careers by setting out to be a crackpot.  It's really easy to
think that you've made a discovery that nobody else has, and in Behe's
case people were lining up to congratulate him.  It takes a lot of
character to be able to listen to your critics honestly and take the
risk that you've, very publicly, just done a faceplant.

    > What is apparent is that you are incredibly confused.

Absolutely.  I go to work every day to be confronted by the fact that
I still don't have a complete understanding of how the universe works,
and the only tool I have at my disposal is my very small brain (and a
half-dozen of the most powerful supercomputers on the planet, although
that's less help than you might think).

    > You think a guy
    > who accepts every major claim of Darwinism is an IDist

?

    > and you think
    > evolution supports the existence of God.

Of several gods, actually, and most of the smarter ones.  And I think
the phrase is "compatible with".

    > Worst of all, you are
    > completely unaware of your state : )

No help for it, I'm afraid.

>
> Objective facts (straight thinking): IDists do not support Darwinism

Well, Dembski does (as you're using the term).  That would put him
into the group of not-IDists (as you're using the term).

    > and Darwinists do not support IDism;

I envy your certainty.  Well, at least during weeks with conference
deadlines.

    > modern science says no evidence
    > of God exists

Y'know, I believe that's true for a large class of gods:  the
reasonably powerful non-trickster gods who feel compelled to give me a
pony don't exist, for example, and I have a preponderance of evidence
to the lack of any pony in my possession.  But pony-giving gods aren't
that interesting (and can get to be a bit of an annoyance).

    > therefore evolution is not evidence supporting the
    > existence of God.

Which?

    > If evolution supported the existence of God,
    > Atheists would not support evolution.

That's true.  And if Jesus Himself came down and gave you a course in
population genetics, you'd become an atheist.  We only perceive what
we can imagine.


>
> Ray


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/15/11 9:35 PM 	
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > On 4/15/2011 1:22 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
    > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:55:21 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:47:01 -0400, the following appeared in
    > >> talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
    > >>
    > >>> In article<3tpbq6t2rcpa7uqq4obq5lqm5ivhab6e0g@4ax.com>,
    > >>> Bob Casanova<nospam@buzz.off>  wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:36:45 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in
    > >>>> talk.origins, posted by Vend<ven...@virgilio.it>:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    > >>>>>> On Apr 11, 2:27 pm, Vend<ven...@virgilio.it>  wrote:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:25 pm, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    > >>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:42 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
> >>>>>>


    > >>>>>>>> Words don't have meaning.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> What do you mean?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Oh wait!  It's discussing things with Backspace that has no
    > >>>>>> meaning.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> You are so mean.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I believe her position is the median one.
    > >>>
    > >>> One man's median is another's persian. So sorry, Iran into this pun.
    > >>
    > >> Someone should hittite you with a stick when you babylon like that.
    > >
    > > He really is akkad, isn't he?
    >
    > If ur going to go on like this we'll come to a parthian of the ways, if
    > not this Spring, next Sumer.
    >

Ur, I don't understand what you are all going on about. Maybe when sumer
comes around and things brighten up I shall. In the meantime, can we all
kish and make up?

    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/15/11 11:20 PM 	

    On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:32:21 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
    <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >On 4/14/2011 11:50 PM, James Beck wrote:

>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:03:31 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>> Randy C<randy...@gmail.com>  wrote:


    >>>
    >>>>> I'm anti-ID mostly because it's such piss-poor theology.  God is
    >>>>> constrained to be no smarter than Mike Behe (because if Behe can't come
    >>>>> up with a non-supernatural explanation for something Behe doesn't
    >>>>> understand, it follows that God must have reached the same conclusion and
    >>>>> done something miraculous).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Now that's an endearing little god who might find fulfilling employment
    >>>>> in one of the larger pantheons, but as the great I AM I'm afraid the
    >>>>> effect is mostly comic:  Behe has, more explicitly than most, created God
    >>>>> in his own image.
    >>>>

    >>>> That's exactly right.  The God proposed by Michael Behe is one is
    >>>> required to constantly "tinker" with nature - here and there adding an
    >>>> irreducibly complex component because he - God - was unable to devise
    >>>> a process that would create such components naturally.
    >>>>
    >>>> A God who was able to create the process of evolution would be smarter
    >>>> and much more able than the God of Michael Behe.
    >>>
    >>> I have a simple argument that I intend to publish on "How a Theist Can
    >>> be a pure Darwinian": Suppose God rehearsed in his mind during eternity
    >>> all the worlds he might have instantiated. Suppose he has a particular
    >>> set of utility functions, and one particular world achieves those
    >>> utility functions most effectively. In that world random variation and
    >>> selection, as well as all other physical (secondary causal) processes,
    >>> deliver what God wants. God then pours in the existential cement to make
    >>> that world exist (primary cause). The world achieves God's will, but God
    >>> does no interventions. I presume God can simulate a quantum mechanical
    >>> universe in which every quantum event is random but God chooses the
    >>> world in which all quantum events satisfy his utility functions.
    >>>
    >>> Those who have read their Leibniz (and ignored the silly version of
    >>> Voltaire's satire) will understand how this works. It is an atemporal
    >>> simulation version of the "best of all possible worlds" argument, except
    >>> that it is entirely consistent with traditional Christian, Jewish and
    >>> Muslim theology.
    >>

    >> Econ already has a god, but if you read Arrow first, you could do an
    >> interesting parody. Still, it will be hard to square with Christian
    >> theology since the god you describe can be neither omniscient nor
    >> omnipotent; he can't even hit an interest rate target and a money
    >> supply target at the same time. Then too, the Jews are used to a
    >> Job-ian bully, but the Christians like a loving, personal diety.
    >> Unfortunately, if the god you propose maximizes his own utility
    >> function, the rest of us are screwed. A commie-god probably won't play
    >> at the University of Chicago, but he might do okay in Peoria.
    >>
    >> If you're really going to square such a god with Christian theology,
    >> you'll need Madison Avenue and focus groups. Lot's of focus groups.
    >
    >OK, I'm still digesting your last reply to me, but explain your Arrow
    >notion. I've read (some of) Arrow; I've even met Arrow: Arrow himself
    >might be God, but for the Stanford connection. But I don't get your
    >reference.
    >
    >I assume Wilkins' utility function thing collides with Arrow, but I'm
    >still not sure what you mean.

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (Journal of Political Economy, 1950)
demonstrated that, if the domain of possible orderings of outcomes
contains 3 or more elements, the only rules that satisfy collective
rationality, unrestricted domain (meaning that, if there's a possible
choice, it's included), the pareto principle, and the irrelevance of
independent alternatives, violate non-dictatorship. So, Wilkin's god
can dictate a welfare maximum, but if we are to have free will, some
(perhaps all) of us don't get what we want.

More accurately, the theorem says that the basic conditions can't be
satisfied simultaneously; so much for omnipotence. One might add that
the heavy hand isn't Invisible, either. People seem to understand this
intuitively, if not instinctively, and we observe many forms of
dictatorship in human society.

Rolling forward 55 years, Herrade Igersheim (Igersheim, Herrade,
"Extending Xu's results to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem." Economics
Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 13 pp. 1-6) shows that a social welfare function
that satisfies the conditions that there is an unrestricted domain,
pareto neutrality, and the irrelevance of independent alternatives is
either dictatorial, i.e. imposed by a dictator, or anti-dictatorial,
i.e. systematically opposed to the preferences of an individual. We
also observe variants of that behavior in human societies.

One moral of the story might be that you should pick your dictators
wisely, watch them closely, and turn on them when you're getting
screwed. The hypothetical El-Wilkins is a particularly odious entity.
It not only does vicious, terrible things. It does them because it
finds them pleasant. It also demands that its creations grovel and
like it. That much at least is consistent with the Christian god: It
really may be better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.

I can see why it would create gullibility... and marketing.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/15/11 11:22 PM 	

Bravo!

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/15/11 11:50 PM 	
James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Wilkins'" is the possessive form, James.

Not my god, actually, because (i) I am an agnostic; and at best I
presume only a neo-Leibnizian limited deity for the fuller argument, and
(ii) I have no requirement anyone gets what they want.

Moreover, I simply do not think that we have free will in the sense of
indeterminacy. All events are caused (possibly not rigidly though, or at
some scales, but they are largely irrelevant to this problem). But
that's a problem only for those theists who think we do have free will.

    >
    > More accurately, the theorem says that the basic conditions can't be
    > satisfied simultaneously; so much for omnipotence. One might add that
    > the heavy hand isn't Invisible, either. People seem to understand this
    > intuitively, if not instinctively, and we observe many forms of
    > dictatorship in human society.

I fail to see how this is any more of a problem for theism than the
requirement that God cannot act illogically, given that the theorem
looks to my untutored eye as a theorem of logic.


    >
    > Rolling forward 55 years, Herrade Igersheim (Igersheim, Herrade,
    > "Extending Xu's results to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem." Economics
    > Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 13 pp. 1-6) shows that a social welfare function
    > that satisfies the conditions that there is an unrestricted domain,
    > pareto neutrality, and the irrelevance of independent alternatives is
    > either dictatorial, i.e. imposed by a dictator, or anti-dictatorial,
    > i.e. systematically opposed to the preferences of an individual. We
    > also observe variants of that behavior in human societies.
    >
    > One moral of the story might be that you should pick your dictators
    > wisely, watch them closely, and turn on them when you're getting
    > screwed. The hypothetical El-Wilkins is a particularly odious entity.
    > It not only does vicious, terrible things. It does them because it
    > finds them pleasant. It also demands that its creations grovel and
    > like it. That much at least is consistent with the Christian god: It
    > really may be better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.
    >
    > I can see why it would create gullibility... and marketing.

I never said the deity had to be nice. In fact if one is a natural
theologian, one presumes the deity is not. This, too, is not a problem
raised by either me or Leibniz, but is of long standing in theistic
theology. For myself I am a profligate polytheist. Every single event
that can be reasonably held to have a function, either locally or
globally, has its own deity. The world we see is a battle of these
deities.


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/15/11 11:50 PM 	

    John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

    > Ur, I don't understand what you are all going on about. Maybe when sumer
    > comes around and things brighten up I shall. In the meantime, can we all
    > kish and make up?

That will teach me not to read the previous post more carefully first...


    -- 
    John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
    http://evolvingthoughts.net
    But al be that he was a philosophre,
    Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/16/11 1:58 AM 	

    On Apr 15, 10:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 15, 11:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >

    > > On Apr 15, 9:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > > > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    > > > > >>>> backspace wrote:
    > > > > >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > > > >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    > > > > >>>> would say yes.
    >
    > > > > >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    > > > > >>>> have in mind?
    >
    > > > > >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > > > >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > > > >>>> a tautology?
    >
    > > > > >>>> David
    >
    > > > > >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    > > > > >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    > > > > >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    > > > > >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > > > > > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >
    > > > > There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can
    > > > > have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    > > > > which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    > > > > called drift, not selection.
    >
    > > > > You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.
    >
    > > > lets map : natural<=>preferential, selection <=> decision.
    >

    > > "Natural", in this case, means "in the absence of human action" or
    > > "existing in or formed by nature".
    >

> As ridiculous as it gets: nobody ever argued that humans produced the
> inhabitants of nature!

Tell that to any cattle or dog breeder.


    >
    > In this case "natural" means "non-supernatural" or "without
    > Intelligence."
    >

Humans are natural and reasonably intellignet.


> So much for your education and degree, Howard. You don't understand


    > the most basic claim of natural selection (absence of God; nature
    > itself is doing the "creating").

No, but you persistently confuse scientific claims with their
religious/philosophical interpretation.

    > > As opposed to "artificial" in this
    > > case. There is no connection or map at all that relates "natural"
    > > and "preferential". Note that this is the very first definition of
    > > "natural".
    >
    > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
    >
    > General Audience:
    >

    > Howard Hershey supposedly has a doctorate, yet here he is using a
    > general source (Dictionary.com) to support his fundamental
    > misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution.

He uses the appropriate evidence for showing how a term is used in
everyday language

> Darwinism opposes Creationism-
> ID (Darwin 1859:6); it is not arguing against human intervention, but
> Divine intervention. Again, no one ever argued that human beings
> created nature! Darwin is saying that Nature behaves like artificial
> breeders, minus the intelligence (supernatural intelligence). It
> simply does not get anymore embarrassing. Now our doctorate will dig
> in his heels and defend his egregious misunderstanding. Fine with me.


    > I have always said that ordinary Darwinists are incredibly stupid and
    > unread.
    >

    > Ray
    >
    > > Sometimes the word "natural" means "having a real or physical
    > > existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual,
    > > fictitious, etc." See definiition 8. In that sense, even selection
    > > designed by humans, or "artificial selection" is "natural."
    >
    > > The word "selection" in the phrase "natural selection" only implies
    > > that a discriminative or a differential *outcome* has occurred because
    > > of some property of the natural environment, not that some entity has
    > > made a choice by virtue of its decision making ability. It is used in
    > > the same sense that one can say that that the pattern of magnetism
    > > (you have already described "magnetism" a process which is 'pattern'
    > > rather than 'design' in your odd world) is to *selectively* attract
    > > certain metals and not other objects. That is, there is a differential
    > > *outcome* when the pattern process of magnetism is applied to a
    > > mixture of iron and most glass.
    >
    > > > Is there such a thing as a preferential decision? this was discussed
    > > > in the thread 'automated selection and randomness' for two months with
    > > > dr. howard Hershey.
    >
    > > You were equally ignorant two months ago.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > > - Show quoted text -


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/16/11 2:04 AM 	
On Apr 16, 7:50 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:


    > James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:32:21 -0400, Mitchell Coffey

    > > <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > >On 4/14/2011 11:50 PM, James Beck wrote:

> > >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:03:31 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > >> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > >>> Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com>  wrote:

No, I think he missed a comma; Wilkin's god, can dictate a welfare
maximum, but...

All hail  Wilkin


><snip>

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/16/11 11:38 AM 	
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:14:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:03:17 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:32:55 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>>><steph...@gmail.com>:


    >>>
    >>>>On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>>> backspace wrote:
    >>>>> > Does random mean non-directed
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    >>>>> would say yes.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    >>>>> have in mind?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    >>>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    >>>>> a tautology?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> David
    >>>>
    >>>>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>>

>>>Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%
>>>predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
>>>and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
>>>some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
>>>intelligent agent". Do you?
>>
>>[Crickets...]
>>
>>>And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
>>>which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
>>>make? If so, please just say it and stop trying to be coy;
>>>"coy" is merely irritating to adults.
>>
>>[Crickets...]
>
>No response, BS?

BS must be channeling Tony...
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/16/11 12:04 PM 	
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:50:30 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

    >James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:32:21 -0400, Mitchell Coffey

    >> <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On 4/14/2011 11:50 PM, James Beck wrote:

>> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:03:31 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> >> Wilkins) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Randy C<randy...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Thank you. Will you be crafting a special Hell for that?

    >Not my god, actually, because (i) I am an agnostic; and at best I
    >presume only a neo-Leibnizian limited deity for the fuller argument, and
    >(ii) I have no requirement anyone gets what they want.

Except the deity, who always does get what he wants, or rather, he
gets the best outcome he can. Bit of an omnipotence gap there, but if,
as you claimed, this deity can be squared with the Christian god, he
can still be omniscient in the sense that he knows what will happen,
even if he isn't necessarily happy about it.

    >Moreover, I simply do not think that we have free will in the sense of
    >indeterminacy. All events are caused (possibly not rigidly though, or at
    >some scales, but they are largely irrelevant to this problem). But
    >that's a problem only for those theists who think we do have free will.

Like, oh say, Augustine, Aquinas, and the majority Christian view
you've promised to be entirely consistent with? Or Islam, where you
can choose whatever you want, but you might as well accept god's will;
that's what you're going to get, anyway.

    >> More accurately, the theorem says that the basic conditions can't be
    >> satisfied simultaneously; so much for omnipotence. One might add that
    >> the heavy hand isn't Invisible, either. People seem to understand this
    >> intuitively, if not instinctively, and we observe many forms of
    >> dictatorship in human society.
    >
    >I fail to see how this is any more of a problem for theism than the
    >requirement that God cannot act illogically, given that the theorem
    >looks to my untutored eye as a theorem of logic.

I sense a sudden breeze as though hands were waving very fast. No.
Wait. They're doing something. I know. They're erecting a straw man.
Illogical action isn't a problem for theism. God is always good. It's
not necessarily a problem in deontology either, since god may have to
act against his inclination to be considered moral. It is, however, a
problem for you to resolve as you attempt to maintain consistency
between Goodness, Duty, and a selfish, Utilitarian prick that does
whatever he wants.

Besides which, why exactly can't god act illogically? I can and, if I
am made in his image, it follows that he can, too. Moreover, because
he is immortal and has no body to feed, he can do so costlessly
forever, or as long as he likes.

    >> Rolling forward 55 years, Herrade Igersheim (Igersheim, Herrade,
    >> "Extending Xu's results to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem." Economics
    >> Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 13 pp. 1-6) shows that a social welfare function
    >> that satisfies the conditions that there is an unrestricted domain,
    >> pareto neutrality, and the irrelevance of independent alternatives is
    >> either dictatorial, i.e. imposed by a dictator, or anti-dictatorial,
    >> i.e. systematically opposed to the preferences of an individual. We
    >> also observe variants of that behavior in human societies.
    >>
    >> One moral of the story might be that you should pick your dictators
    >> wisely, watch them closely, and turn on them when you're getting
    >> screwed. The hypothetical El-Wilkins is a particularly odious entity.
    >> It not only does vicious, terrible things. It does them because it
    >> finds them pleasant. It also demands that its creations grovel and
    >> like it. That much at least is consistent with the Christian god: It
    >> really may be better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.
    >>
    >> I can see why it would create gullibility... and marketing.
    >
    >I never said the deity had to be nice. In fact if one is a natural
    >theologian, one presumes the deity is not. This, too, is not a problem
    >raised by either me or Leibniz, but is of long standing in theistic
    >theology. 

No goal post shifting, please. You've promised me a utilitarian god
that is "entirely consistent with traditional Christian, Jewish and
Muslim theology." Now you're offering me something else entirely: a
deity that, at best, cannot make good on his promise of Justice for
all the gentiles.

I feel so used.

>For myself I am a p...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Walter Bushell 	4/16/11 12:31 PM 	
In article
<2cace7c0-a395-43d7-a85b-a5c749d39d58@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
 Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Y'know, I believe that's true for a large class of gods:  the
    > reasonably powerful non-trickster gods who feel compelled to give me a
    > pony don't exist, for example, and I have a preponderance of evidence
    > to the lack of any pony in my possession.  But pony-giving gods aren't
    > that interesting (and can get to be a bit of an annoyance).

Now, if they could give Mercedes Benzen, it would be a different kettle
of fish. (Block that metaphor!)

-- 
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/16/11 4:09 PM 	

    backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:

    >>>>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> backspace wrote:
    >>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >>>>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or
    >>>>>> purpose. So I would say yes.
    >>
    >>>>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context
    >>>>>> did you have in mind?
    >>
    >>>>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this
    >>>>>> (apparently) unrelated thread to asserting in some way that
    >>>>>> 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology?
    >>
    >>>>>> David
    >>
    >>>>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>

    >>>> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone
    >>>> else is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed"
    >>>> tend to have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >>
    >>> what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >>
    >> There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can
    >> have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    >> which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    >> called drift, not selection.
    >>
    >> You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.
    >
    > lets map :  natural<=>preferential,   selection <=> decision.
    > 

Let's not since it is an entirely bogus correspondence.

Instead how about we map:  back<==>reverse, space<==>void

Now what is the reverse of void?  Why thickness, density of course.

So Density how is your mapping going?

David

D

chez watt Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/16/11 4:22 PM 	
----  Do you need water to take tablets of stone ?  ---------


    >>>>> test for randomness is whether the process only represents itself
    >>>>> . mix blk and white marbles in a pot and do a selection at random
    >>>>> by putting my hand inside without looking selecting by chance the
    >>>>> white marble placing each onn turn as i find them on the table we
    >>>>> have a design process
     

>>>> You do understand that the above is pure gibberish, don't you?
 
>>> yes,i am on a tablet will repost later in comprehensible
>>> manner ,sorry.....

>> Yes, strange things do happen if you don't take exactly the
>> prescribed dose of the tablets. But well done for getting a
>> prescription.

> i meant windows 7 touch tablet with no keyboard see words like
> tabletvhave no meaning now imagine the confusion we get with natural
> selection

Re: chez watt Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	4/16/11 4:40 PM 	

    On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:22:18 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
    <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    >----  Do you need water to take tablets of stone ?  ---------

The instructions clearly read:  Take with full glass of water on an
empty mind.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/16/11 6:56 PM 	
James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are already in it.


    >
    > >Not my god, actually, because (i) I am an agnostic; and at best I
    > >presume only a neo-Leibnizian limited deity for the fuller argument, and
    > >(ii) I have no requirement anyone gets what they want.
    >
    > Except the deity, who always does get what he wants, or rather, he
    > gets the best outcome he can. Bit of an omnipotence gap there, but if,
    > as you claimed, this deity can be squared with the Christian god, he
    > can still be omniscient in the sense that he knows what will happen,
    > even if he isn't necessarily happy about it.

He satisfies his utility functions. He may not like the ancillary
outcomes.


    >
    > >Moreover, I simply do not think that we have free will in the sense of
    > >indeterminacy. All events are caused (possibly not rigidly though, or at
    > >some scales, but they are largely irrelevant to this problem). But
    > >that's a problem only for those theists who think we do have free will.
    >
    > Like, oh say, Augustine, Aquinas, and the majority Christian view
    > you've promised to be entirely consistent with? Or Islam, where you
    > can choose whatever you want, but you might as well accept god's will;
    > that's what you're going to get, anyway.

I do not need to solve more than the problem at hand. If you are
Augustine, you need to solve the problem of God's foreknowledge and free
will anyway. My solution (Leibniz' solution) is that God knew this world
would include all your free choices, and because it is the "best of all
[logically] possible worlds it is the world God had to create.

Hmmm.. .possibly God lacks free will...


    >
    > >> More accurately, the theorem says that the basic conditions can't be
    > >> satisfied simultaneously; so much for omnipotence. One might add that
    > >> the heavy hand isn't Invisible, either. People seem to understand this
    > >> intuitively, if not instinctively, and we observe many forms of
    > >> dictatorship in human society.
    > >
    > >I fail to see how this is any more of a problem for theism than the
    > >requirement that God cannot act illogically, given that the theorem
    > >looks to my untutored eye as a theorem of logic.
    >
    > I sense a sudden breeze as though hands were waving very fast. No.
    > Wait. They're doing something. I know. They're erecting a straw man.
    > Illogical action isn't a problem for theism. God is always good. It's
    > not necessarily a problem in deontology either, since god may have to
    > act against his inclination to be considered moral. It is, however, a
    > problem for you to resolve as you attempt to maintain consistency
    > between Goodness, Duty, and a selfish, Utilitarian prick that does
    > whatever he wants.

We are talking about a deity. Strawmen are a necessary aspect of that.
In philosophy of science we refer to such discussions as toy world
examples.

And have you just thrown the Euthyphro Dilemma at me?


    >
    > Besides which, why exactly can't god act illogically? I can and, if I
    > am made in his image, it follows that he can, too. Moreover, because
    > he is immortal and has no body to feed, he can do so costlessly
    > forever, or as long as he likes.

I again say that I do not need to solve more problems than this one.
Theists traditionally state that God will not act against his nature and
he is supremely rational. Now, if God can do anything, logical or not,
then by the principle of explosion, every possible state is consistent
with God and the problem goes away.


    >
    > >> Rolling forward 55 years, Herrade Igersheim (Igersheim, Herrade,
    > >> "Extending Xu's results to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem." Economics
    > >> Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 13 pp. 1-6) shows that a social welfare function
    > >> that satisfies the conditions that there is an unrestricted domain,

> >> pareto neutrality, and the irrelevance of independent alternati...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/17/11 4:15 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 7:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Does random mean non-directed


There are words with a clear pattern meaning such as random and
chance. Design would be non-random,directed, volition will etc.

Terms like accumulation, preservation are pattern-or-design neutral.
To understand what Darwin meant with natural selection we must use
*dissimilar* terms which are pattern-or-design neutral in proper
sentences and paragraphs to determine whether the concept represented
by Darwin with NS1 was a pattern or design.

1) By the process of natural selection morphological changes took
place.
2) By the process of natural preservation morphological changes took
place.
3) By the process of natural accumulation morphological changes took
place.

Darwin lamented how he used selection instead of preservation, his
preferred word because selection usually has a strong design notion
within the patter-or-design dichotomy. With accumulation and
preservation it isn't readily apparent whether a design or pattern
concept is represented.

non-random, volition, will are more design in pattern-or-design , than
for example 'devoid of volition', chance, absolute empire of
accident.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/17/11 5:22 AM 	

    (2011/04/17 20:15), backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 7:42 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >> Does random mean non-directed
    >
    >
    > There are words with a clear pattern meaning such as random and
    > chance. Design would be non-random,directed, volition will etc.
    >
    > Terms like accumulation, preservation are pattern-or-design neutral.
    > To understand what Darwin meant with natural selection we must use
    > *dissimilar* terms which are pattern-or-design neutral in proper
    > sentences and paragraphs to determine whether the concept represented
    > by Darwin with NS1 was a pattern or design.
    >
    > 1) By the process of natural selection morphological changes took
    > place.
    > 2) By the process of natural preservation morphological changes took
    > place.
    > 3) By the process of natural accumulation morphological changes took

> place.an


    >
    > Darwin lamented how he used selection instead of preservation, his
    > preferred word because selection usually has a strong design notion
    > within the patter-or-design dichotomy. With accumulation and
    > preservation it isn't readily apparent whether a design or pattern
    > concept is represented.
    >
    > non-random, volition, will are more design in pattern-or-design , than
    > for example 'devoid of volition', chance, absolute empire of
    > accident.
    >

Pattern and design don't constitute a dichotomy. And "preservation" is a
word mostly used in the context of humans doing it, so the implication
of a guiding intelligence is there too.

You're making up your own language. Why not, but you can't expect
everyone to just remake their own languages to match yours, nor can you
think that redefining words changes something about the entities they
represent.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/17/11 8:52 AM 	

1) By the process of natural preservation the mammoths were preserved
- pattern.
2)) By the process of natural selection the mammoths were preserved -
pattern.

which can be better stated:
3) There was a natural accumulation of mammoths frozen in place -
pattern.

preservation, accumulation and selection are dissimilar words , used
in a sentence to convey the same pattern concept.

Either  the mammoths were frozen because of some pattern in nature or
somebody willed for them to be frozen. Pattern or design are your only
options, if you differ  I would like to know why.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/17/11 9:23 AM 	

What is a pattern concept ? Your three sentences don't share a semantic
meaning OR a structure, and sharing a structure doesn't mean anything to
a sentence anyway.

    >
    > Either  the mammoths were frozen because of some pattern in nature or
    > somebody willed for them to be frozen. Pattern or design are your only
    > options, if you differ  I would like to know why.
    >

Here's why : that's not what the words "pattern" and "design" mean. For
example, you do realize that patterns are a design tool, right ? Used by
bona fide non-controversial intelligent human designers.

Also, people are part of nature so people's wills *are* a pattern of
nature. (which is why the distinction between evolution by "artificial"
or "natural" selection isn't clear-cut but context usually takes care of
that)

Also, making a distinction between things that were "willed to happen"
by "somebody" (and the only "somebodies" we know of are human) and
things that... weren't... is like making a distinction between things
that are chocolate ice-cream and things that aren't chocolate ice-cream.
They're two options, sure, but it's not a very useful distinction to
make because the overwhelming majority of things in this Universe aren't
chocolate ice-cream.

If you have a non-trivial non-semantic point to make, cut the word salad
and make that point.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/17/11 10:12 AM 	

    On Apr 15, 5:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 15, 11:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > On Apr 15, 9:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > > > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    > > > > >>>> backspace wrote:
    > > > > >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > > > >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    > > > > >>>> would say yes.
    >
    > > > > >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    > > > > >>>> have in mind?
    >
    > > > > >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > > > >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > > > >>>> a tautology?
    >
    > > > > >>>> David
    >
    > > > > >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    > > > > >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    > > > > >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    > > > > >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > > > > > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >
    > > > > There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can
    > > > > have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    > > > > which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    > > > > called drift, not selection.
    >
    > > > > You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.
    >
    > > > lets map : natural<=>preferential, selection <=> decision.
    >

    > > "Natural", in this case, means "in the absence of human action" or
    > > "existing in or formed by nature".
    >
    > As ridiculous as it gets: nobody ever argued that humans produced the
    > inhabitants of nature!

But humans have *artificially* shaped domesticated animals and plants
by the process called "artificial selection", which means selection
guided by human intelligence.  And the word "natural" in "natural
selection" describes the very same *process* of "selection" unguided
by human intelligence.  Darwin's use of "artificial" as opposed to
"natural" was, in fact, specifically a distinction between the same
*process* (selection) being done either "in the absence of human
action" or "in the presence of human action."

    > In this case "natural" means "non-supernatural" or "without
    > Intelligence."

No. The distinction between "artificial" and "natural" forms of
"selection" has always been, from its very first usage, a distinction
between a process guided by human intelligence (for end purposes that
the humans desired) and that which is not guided by human
intelligence.


    >
    > So much for your education and degree, Howard. You don't understand
    > the most basic claim of natural selection (absence of God; nature
    > itself is doing the "creating").

That first claim (absence of God) is both ahistorical and inaccurate.
The second, for some definitions of nature (specifically that the
events and processes described be real and material rather than
imaginary or supernatural, can be accurate.  Not surprising that you
conflate the two and regard them as identical.


    >
    > > As opposed to "artificial" in this
    > > case. There is no connection or map at all that relates "natural"
    > > and "preferential". Note that this is the very first definition of
    > > "natural".
    >
    > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
    >
    > General Audience:
    >
    > Howard Hershey supposedly has a doctorate, yet here he is using a
    > general source (Dictionary.com) to support his fundamental
    > misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution.

A dictionary is the correct source for determining how particular
words are used in modern or older contexts.  Words only have meaning
by virtue of their usage in a public setting.  Some words, of course,
can have multiple meanings depending on conditions of usage and some
words have specialized meaning among subgroups (e.g., the slang use of
"bad" or the word "gene" when used by biologists rather than the lay
public).  If one wants to use a word in a specialized or private
fashion, then one needs to explain that meaning so that others can
understand what they mean.  That doesn't mean that others have to
accept your private meaning of the word.  For example, your claim that
the "natural" in "natural selection" means "in the absence of God".
That is a non-standard definition of "natural" in that setting
precisely because of the fact that it was invented in opposition to
the phrase "artificial selection".

There *is* a definition of "natural" that *is* in opposition to "God"
when "God" is understood to be "the supernatural" (and which I pointed
out below).  That is, when one defines "natural" in opposition to
"supernatural" rather than in opposition to "artificial" as Darwin
did.  Under that definition, both "natural selection" and "artificial
selection" would be considered to be "natural", as both occur by
materially describable and empirically observable processes rather
than by inexplicable mysterious processes that must be ascribed to a
God on the basis of faith rather than reason and observation.  In
fact, *all* science limits itself to such "natural" processes.  Most
theologians do not consider there to be a conflict between the *fact*
that much of what occurs or can be seen in the universe can be
described and understood by the use of reason and observation and a
belief that God works through those natural mechanisms.  But you (and
most fundamentalists and book-worshipping literalists) demand that God
must work the way you want Him to, so when there is a conflict between
empirical reality and your faith, you reject reality.

    > Darwinism opposes Creationism-
    > ID (Darwin 1859:6); it is not arguing against human intervention, but
    > Divine intervention. Again, no one ever argued that human beings
    > created nature! Darwin is saying that Nature behaves like artificial
    > breeders, minus the intelligence (supernatural intelligence). It
    > simply does not get anymore embarrassing. Now our doctorate will dig
    > in his heels and defend his egregious misunderstanding. Fine with me.
    > I have always said that ordinary Darwinists are incredibly stupid and
    > unread.

And I have always thought that you were a particularly dense
creationist.  Darwin was a scientist.  *Anything* he described would
be described within the scientific framework of "natural" as opposed
to "supernatural".  The fact is that Nature (capitalized to show that
he is talking about the empirically observable Nature that science
describes) behaves by the same *mechanism* in both "natural" and
"artificial" selection with the exception that the change in
organismal form or function in the former is not guided by human
intelligence but by changes (or new opportunities) in the
environment.  He does not claim any ultimate cause for these
environmental changes or opportunities.  He simply observes that
changes in environment can lead to changes in organismal form or
function, just as human intelligence and intent can lead to changes in
organismal form or function, by the process of differential death or
breeding of stock to weed out those that do not meet local
environmental constraints (natural selection) or human intent
(artificial selection). Both artificial and natural selection use an
empirically observable "natural" (as opposed to "supernatural"
mechanism -- namely, differential reproductive success of different
variants).


    >
    > Ray
    >
    >
    >
    > > Sometimes the word "natural" means "having a real or physical
    > > existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual,
    > > fictitious, etc." See definiition 8. In that sense, even selection
    > > designed by humans, or "artificial selection" is "natural."
    >
    > > The word "selection" in the phrase "natural selection" only implies
    > > that a discriminative or a differential *outcome* has occurred because
    > > of some property of the natural environment, not that some entity has
    > > made a choice by virtue of its decision making ability. It is used in
    > > the same sense that one can say that that the pattern of magnetism
    > > (you have already described "magnetism" a process which is 'pattern'
    > > rather than 'design' in your odd world) is to *selectively* attract

> > certain metals and...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/17/11 12:14 PM 	

    > Let's not since it is an entirely bogus correspondence.
    >
    > Instead how about we map:  back<==>reverse, space<==>void
    >
    > Now what is the reverse of void?  Why thickness, density of course.
    >
    > So Density how is your mapping going?
    >
    > David
    >
    >

natural<=> preferential as discussed in the thread on automated
selection and randomness, where the person made a natural selection or
preferential decision for cake over banana. Know the context it was
used in.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Ray Martinez 	4/17/11 4:10 PM 	

    On Apr 17, 10:12 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 15, 5:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 15, 11:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >

    > > > "Natural", in this case, means "in the absence of human action" or
    > > > "existing in or formed by nature".
    >
    > > As ridiculous as it gets: nobody ever argued that humans produced the
    > > inhabitants of nature!
    >
    > But humans have *artificially* shaped domesticated animals and plants
    > by the process called "artificial selection", which means selection
    > guided by human intelligence.  

Long-winded concession. I'll take it, of course.

    > And the word "natural" in "natural
    > selection" describes the very same *process* of "selection" unguided
    > by human intelligence.  

But no one, including Darwin, is arguing against human intelligence
originating species. He is arguing against Divine intelligence
(Creationism). Darwin's metaphor (human breeders selecting their
traits) represents the absence of supernatural intelligence in the
selection process.

    > Darwin's use of "artificial" as opposed to
    > "natural" was, in fact, specifically a distinction between the same
    > *process* (selection) being done either "in the absence of human
    > action" or "in the presence of human action."
    >
    > > In this case "natural" means "non-supernatural" or "without
    > > Intelligence."
    >
    > No. The distinction between "artificial" and "natural" forms of
    > "selection" has always been, from its very first usage, a distinction
    > between a process guided by human intelligence (for end purposes that
    > the humans desired) and that which is not guided by human
    > intelligence.
    >

Again, your fundamental error is perpetuated. The word "natural" as it
precedes "selection" is an adjective. Its only purpose is to tell the
reader that supernatural influence, not human influence, is absent in
biological production. It seems you are unable to understand that
Darwin's metaphor does NOT presuppose human intelligence as having or
ever having a role in the origin of species. His metaphor,
corresponding to artificial breeding, is only meant to acquaint the
reader with the concept of selection. "Natural" not only means
"absence of supernatural" but also that material nature itself is
doing the selecting. Darwin assumes that everyone understands material
nature as not possessing human or Divine intelligence. Your
fundamental error has Darwin arguing against human intelligence as
causing the origin of species. Again, he is arguing against Divine
intelligence since no one has ever maintained species, past or
present, to be the effects of human intelligence.

See Darwin 1859:6 for a concise statement of the goals of his book. He
is arguing against Creationism (Divine intelligence).

I am ignoring the remainder of your post (below) because it defends
and repeats your fundamental error.

Ray

> to "super...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Ray Martinez 	4/17/11 4:51 PM 	
> guided by human intelligence.  And the word "natural" in "natural


    > selection" describes the very same *process* of "selection" unguided

> by human intelligence.  Darwin's use of "artificial" as opposed to


    > "natural" was, in fact, specifically a distinction between the same
    > *process* (selection) being done either "in the absence of human
    > action" or "in the presence of human action."
    >
    > > In this case "natural" means "non-supernatural" or "without
    > > Intelligence."
    >
    > No. The distinction between "artificial" and "natural" forms of
    > "selection" has always been, from its very first usage, a distinction
    > between a process guided by human intelligence (for end purposes that
    > the humans desired) and that which is not guided by human
    > intelligence.
    >
    >
    >

Laughable ignorance.

If you weren't in possession of a doctorate I would, of course,
totally ignore your comments.

In the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate "natural" always means "non-
supernatural" and/or "absence of Intelligence." The fact is basic,
elementary, fundamental and rudimentary. Darwin 1859 dethroned
Creationism and Paleyan ID. Gould said "Before Darwin, we thought that
a benevolent God had created us."

If you are not ignorant, then you are "explaining facts" with
Christian Evolutionists in mind. Since we know that you are an
Atheist, Howard, your explanations make no sense and are thus
explained. Yes, you are attempting to trick Backspace (a Christian)
into believing that Darwinism is not against God. But Darwin on page 6
of "The Origin" admits plainly that he is attacking 19th century
Creationism.

    > There *is* a definition of "natural" that *is* in opposition to "God"
    > when "God" is understood to be "the supernatural" (and which I pointed
    > out below).  

Yes, and *that* definition is the definition of said word in the
context of the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate (which I already
pointed out above).

    > That is, when one defines "natural" in opposition to
    > "supernatural" rather than in opposition to "artificial" as Darwin
    > did.  Under that definition, both "natural selection" and "artificial
    > selection" would be considered to be "natural", as both occur by
    > materially describable and empirically observable processes rather
    > than by inexplicable mysterious processes that must be ascribed to a
    > God on the basis of faith rather than reason and observation.  In
    > fact, *all* science limits itself to such "natural" processes.  Most
    > theologians do not consider there to be a conflict between the *fact*
    > that much of what occurs or can be seen in the universe can be
    > described and understood by the use of reason and observation and a
    > belief that God works through those natural mechanisms.  But you (and
    > most fundamentalists and book-worshipping literalists) demand that God
    > must work the way you want Him to, so when there is a conflict between
    > empirical reality and your faith, you reject reality.
    >

(I am only addressing the last sentence.)

The Fundies are in YOUR bed, Howard. They accept species mutability. I
do not. And your assertions about God fail because the God you allude
to does not exist. There is no source that says God created by natural/
unintelligent processess----obviously!

We have a source for our view of God (Book of Genesis). And there is
no conflict between Genesis and reality; only Genesis/reality and
Darwinism conflict.

Where did you obtain the idea that evolution supports the existence of
*a* God, Howard?

Did you forget that you are an Atheist?

LOL!

Ray

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/18/11 7:53 AM 	

Darwin's ideas certainly were not those of a fundamentalist
creationist Biblical literalist like yourself.   And, unlike the
theologian Paley, he did provide a proximal material mechanism to
explain change in organismal form.  But Paley was not a fundamentalist
either, and did ask, in his Natural Theology, the hard questions about
why nature was often so cruel and wasteful.  His answer may not
satisfy the religious, but it does accurately describe selection's
conservative role.

Science always will and can only provide a proximal material
explanation of how nature actually does work.  There is a long history
of Christian (or other religious) scientists (from before Darwin to
the present) that regard what they are doing in science to be
understanding how God's Nature works.  From their perspective there
can never be conflict between what science finds and what God did even
if there is conflict between a literal interpretation of the Bible and
what nature says.  Whatever material nature shows us (and it clearly
shows that mean population phenotypes and even metabolic capabilities
can be changed by non-intelligent -- at least no detectable
intelligent -- interaction of variations (that are random) and non-
random environmental conditions) is the mechanism by which God works
in the material world.  But these Christians who are scientists don't,
unlike you, arrogantly assume that a book written by humans ever
trumps empirical reality.

    > Gould said "Before Darwin, we thought that
    > a benevolent God had created us."
    >
    > If you are not ignorant, then you are "explaining facts" with
    > Christian Evolutionists in mind. Since we know that you are an
    > Atheist, Howard, your explanations make no sense and are thus
    > explained.

You don't know my religious beliefs or if I have any.  All you know is
that I am not a Bible-idolator and am capable of thinking in
metaphorical rather than brain-dead literal terms.

    > Yes, you are attempting to trick Backspace (a Christian)
    > into believing that Darwinism is not against God.

Whether or not Darwinism is "against God" depends upon whether or not
you believe that God is lying to us in the nature we are presented
with or, instead, believe that the Bible must be both infallible and
historically accurate and that any empirical reality that doesn't
agree with [your or some authority you accept's interpretation of] the
Bible must be the great deceiver.  You obviously are in the latter
camp.  Whatever camp I am in, I clearly give more weight to what
nature tells us than what the Bible tells us about how the empirical
world actually works.

    > But Darwin on page 6
    > of "The Origin" admits plainly that he is attacking 19th century
    > Creationism.

You are going to have to be more specific.   Below is an on-line copy
of the first edition.  It should be easy for you to find where Darwin
"admits plainly that he is attacking" what you call "Creationism" and
directly qu...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/18/11 11:42 AM 	

    On Apr 17, 6:23 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > (2011/04/18 0:52), backspace wrote:
    > > On Apr 17, 2:22 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    > >> (2011/04/17 20:15), backspace wrote:

> >>> On Apr 11, 7:42 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>

a pattern of leaves on the ground after a storm is not the same as a
design template . pattern is a homonym . the pattern of leaves
represent only themselves . design is the representation of something
other than itself. if the leaves were arranged in a palindromic
pattern it would be design like genetic grammar with palindromes in
genes. palindromes are IC

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/18/11 11:57 AM 	

No, it isn't. Whether a pattern is designed by a natural process, a
person or not designed at all, "pattern" means the same thing.

    > the pattern of leaves
    > represent only themselves .

What is that supposed to mean ? The pattern of leaves "represents" the
ground topology, the distribution of trees above, the wind patterns, the
season... Those are all things that affect the pattern and can be
inferred to various extents from the pattern.

    > design is the representation of something
    > other than itself.

It is ? Random google search, gets me the Free Online Dictionary, entry
for "design", the noun :
1 a sketch or plan produced before something is made a design for a dress.
2 style; the way in which something has been made or put together It is
very modern in design; I don't like the design of that building.
3 a pattern etc The curtains have a flower design on them.
4 a plan formed in the mind; (an) intention Our holidays coincided by
design and not by accident.

Nothing about "the representation of something other than itself". See,

    you're making up your own language.

> if the leaves were arranged in a palindromic


    > pattern it would be design like genetic grammar with palindromes in
    > genes. palindromes are IC

Are crystals IC ?

>

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	4/18/11 12:06 PM 	
On Apr 16, 9:56 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:50:30 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > Wilkins) wrote:


    >
    > > >James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:32:21 -0400, Mitchell Coffey

    > > >> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > >> >On 4/14/2011 11:50 PM, James Beck wrote:

> > >> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:03:31 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > >> >> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > >> >>> Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com>  wrote:

[snippage, above and below]


    > > Thank you. Will you be crafting a special Hell for that?
    >
    > You are already in it.

Ah. The Hell of Misplaced Apostrophes, where violators are incessantly
subjected to a rain of pricks. But I digress (and you get two puns for
the price of one).

    >And have you just thrown the Euthyphro Dilemma at me?

Well, let’s see. In Euthyphro, the first definition of Piety isn’t a
definition at all, but an example. You’ve offered no examples, so
you’re off the hook there. Definition 2 failed because there are
multiple gods that disagree. You’ve neatly dodged that by offering
just one selfish, utility maximizing dictator.

Definition 3 explores the boundary between intrinsic and extrinsic
properties. Your avatar maximizes his utility, so his actions are
intrinsically ethical in the sense that their consequences are better
than those of any other action he can perform under the circumstances.
The dictator-god then, knows the expected amount of Piety and is
optimally satisfied by the amount and quality of Piety he receives;
caveat emptor, if you please.

At his welfare max, god can’t be made better off by more Piety, by
less Piety, or by higher quality Piety than he's expecting, so the
marginal value of a unit of Piety must be zero. On the other hand,
since El-Wilkins is a rational utility maximizer, he sets marginal
benefit equal to marginal cost, so the marginal cost of a unit of
Piety must also be zero. Strict non-satiety requires that, if he
attached a non-zero value to Piety, he could elicit perfect
compliance, costlessly in this case. It follows that Piety, however it
is defined and whether it has any intrinsic value, is irrelevant to
your god. El-Wilkins doesn’t command Piety because he doesn’t want it;
if he did want it, he could costlessly squeeze it like miraculous
blood from the local turnips. Offering it to him is pointless.

In definition 4, Socrates proposes that maybe Piety contributes to
Justice in some way, but in your case, whatever El-Wilkins does is
Just by construction and Piety contributes nothing to that equation
via sacrifice and/or prayer. Socrates rightly issues a mild rebuke to
Euthyphro on the subject of Piety as a commercial transaction.

In that, Socrates makes it clear that he is not an economist. If he
had been, he might have noted that *someone* must be benefitting from
the demanded supply of Piety, and followed the trail of food offerings
and money from the altars and collection plates to the banu sasan, the
encompassing Arabic term for beggars, grifters, and preachers. That
might not have been all bad; the wise remember to render unto Caesar,
and Socrates might have come off better by worrying less about the
gods and sucking up to the local politicians and denizens of the
temples.

In any event, you appear to have nicely avoided dealing with the
Euthyphro dilemma, but you’ve traded it for other problems. I'm
holding it for now, but I grow increasingly convinced that, when it
comes, your resolution of a Utilitarian god that is "entirely


    consistent with traditional Christian, Jewish and Muslim theology"

will take my breath away. ;>).


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/18/11 12:15 PM 	

google perry marshall

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/18/11 12:26 PM 	
I'm getting stuff on Google AdWords ? Is there some kind of point to
this, or maybe you could actually give a specific link to what you mean ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/18/11 2:13 PM 	
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:38:27 -0700, the following appeared


    in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

    >>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:32:55 -0700, the following appeared
    >>>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
    >>>
    >>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    >>>><steph...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

    >>>>>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

>>>>Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%


    >>>>predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
    >>>>and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
    >>>>some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
    >>>>intelligent agent". Do you?

Still waiting, BS; it's been a week now...

    >>>>And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
    >>>>which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
    >>>>make? If so, please just say it

Still waiting, BS...


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	David Hare-Scott 	4/18/11 3:53 PM 	
backspace wrote:


    > On Apr 17, 1:09 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >> backspace wrote:

    >>> On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>> On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

    >>>>>>>> backspace wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>

    >>>>>>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or
    >>>>>>>> purpose. So I would say yes.
    >>
    >>>>>>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which
    >>>>>>>> context did you have in mind?
    >>
    >>>>>>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this
    >>>>>>>> (apparently) unrelated thread to asserting in some way that
    >>>>>>>> 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology?
    >>
    >>>>>>>> David
    >>

    >>>>>>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >>

    >>>>>> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As
    >>>>>> everyone else is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and
    >>>>>> "directed" tend to have very different meanings depending on the
    >>>>>> context.
    >>
    >>>>> what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random
    >>>>> ns ?
    >>
    >>>> There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you
    >>>> can have a situation where reproductive success is completely
    >>>> random, in which case you'll still get allele changes over time
    >>>> but AFAIK that's called drift, not selection.
    >>
    >>>> You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.
    >>
    >>> lets map : natural<=>preferential, selection <=> decision.
    >>

    >> Let's not since it is an entirely bogus correspondence.
    >>
    >> Instead how about we map: back<==>reverse, space<==>void
    >>
    >> Now what is the reverse of void? Why thickness, density of course.
    >>
    >> So Density how is your mapping going?
    >>
    >> David
    >>
    >>
    >
    > natural<=> preferential as discussed in the thread on automated
    > selection and randomness, where the person made a natural selection or
    > preferential decision for cake over banana. Know the context it was
    > used in.

So where is this?  Do I have to search all of TO?  Don't bother finding it.

You continue to employ word games instead of scientific method.  Pointless.
Pointless.  I should know better, you will never get outside that box.  I
shall stop wasting my time.

D

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Ray Martinez 	4/18/11 5:03 PM 	

    On Apr 18, 7:53 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 17, 7:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 17, 10:12 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 15, 5:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On Apr 15, 11:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >

Evasion by non-sequitur (Intelligent persons know what this means).

    > And, unlike the
    > theologian Paley, he did provide a proximal material mechanism to
    > explain change in organismal form.  

Nonsense.

You are engaged in caricature: enlarging a minor aspect to be a major
feature. And Arch-Deacon Paley was also a first-rate biologist.

    > But Paley was not a fundamentalist
    > either, and did ask, in his Natural Theology, the hard questions about
    > why nature was often so cruel and wasteful.  

That's right: my scientific master was not a Fundamentalist. Your
incessant habit of attempting to cast me as a Fundy, despite the fact
that I am a declared disciple of Paley, is falsified by your own pen.
Paley was the quintessential anti-transmutationist/fixist. 20th
century Fundamentalists accept Darwinian microevolution and a limited
role for natural selection: the Fundies are in your bed, Howard. Nice
accomplishment: You have been able to convince mental retards that
species are mutable. Intelligent persons understand that Fundy support
is an insult. They are a reflection of your true intellectual state.

    > His answer may not
    > satisfy the religious, but it does accurately describe selection's
    > conservative role.
    >

You seem to imply that Paley accepted natural selection. The concept
was not discovered until 1838. The first scientific paper announcing
discovery did not appear until 1858. Paley died in 1805. Paley's
handling of the Malthusian population concept said the phenomenon
would PREVENT transmutation. Darwinian explication says the exact
opposite. These basic facts expose your comment to be more gross
caricature (or inexcusable ignorance for a man with a doctorate).

    > Science always will and can only provide a proximal material
    > explanation of how nature actually does work.  

You have described Scientism, not Science. Real Science accepts
theistic assumptions about nature.

    > There is a long history
    > of Christian (or other religious) scientists (from before Darwin to
    > the present) that regard what they are doing in science to be
    > understanding how God's Nature works.  

Yes, before the rise of Darwinism science accepted theistic
assumptions (ID) concerning nature.

    > From their perspective there
    > can never be conflict between what science finds and what God did even
    > if there is conflict between a literal interpretation of the Bible and
    > what nature says.  Whatever material nature shows us (and it clearly
    > shows that mean population phenotypes and even metabolic capabilities

> can be changed by non-intelligent -- at least no detectab...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/18/11 5:28 PM 	
James Beck <jdbec...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > I'm
    > holding it for now, but I grow increasingly convinced that, when it
    > comes, your resolution of a Utilitarian god that is "entirely
    > consistent with traditional Christian, Jewish and Muslim theology"
    > will take my breath away. ;>).

In the meantime, breathe...
-- 
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/18/11 11:21 PM 	

    On Apr 19, 12:53 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    > backspace wrote:

    > >> Let's not since it is an entirely bogus correspondence.
    >
    > >> Instead how about we map: back<==>reverse, space<==>void
    >
    > >> Now what is the reverse of void? Why thickness, density of course.
    >
    > >> So Density how is your mapping going?
    >
    > >> David
    >
    > > natural<=> preferential as discussed in the thread on automated
    > > selection and randomness, where the person made a natural selection or
    > > preferential decision for cake over banana. Know the context it was
    > > used in.
    >
    > So where is this?  Do I have to search all of TO?  Don't bother finding it.
    >
    > You continue to employ word games instead of scientific method.  Pointless.
    > Pointless.  I should know better, you will never get outside that box.  I
    > shall stop wasting my time.
    >
    > D

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abe4fd5d2244b463

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/19/11 8:17 AM 	

    On Apr 18, 6:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 18, 7:53 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

    >
    > > > In the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate "natural" always means "non-
    > > > supernatural" and/or "absence of Intelligence." The fact is basic,
    > > > elementary, fundamental and rudimentary. Darwin 1859 dethroned
    > > > Creationism and Paleyan ID.
    >
    > > Darwin's ideas certainly were not those of a fundamentalist
    > > creationist Biblical literalist like yourself.  
    >
    > Evasion by non-sequitur

Ray, this was not an evasion, or a non sequitur.  You need to learn
what terms mean before you try to use them.

    > (Intelligent persons know what this means).

Which obviously leaves Ray out....

    >
    > > And, unlike the
    > > theologian Paley, he did provide a proximal material mechanism to
    > > explain change in organismal form.  
    >
    > Nonsense.

Yes, your reply is nonsense.   You don't need to call your shots like
that.

    >
    > You are engaged in caricature: enlarging a minor aspect to be a major
    > feature. And Arch-Deacon Paley was also a first-rate biologist.

Be that as it may, Darwin did provide a mechanism to explain change in
species.   Paley did not provide a mechanism by which he felt God
acted.


    >
    > > But Paley was not a fundamentalist
    > > either, and did ask, in his Natural Theology, the hard questions about
    > > why nature was often so cruel and wasteful.  
    >
    > That's right: my scientific master was not a Fundamentalist.


But you, Ray, are one.   Also, your 'scientific master' was wrong
about his claims.  The appearance of design is not proof that God
exists.


    > Your
    > incessant habit of attempting to cast me as a Fundy, despite the fact
    > that I am a declared disciple of Paley, is falsified by your own pen.

Except that you, Ray are a "fundy", in that you follow fundamentalist
beliefs regarding the Bible, and religion in general.   Howard's point
is that Paley himself was not a fundamentalist, but you, are.

    > Paley was the quintessential anti-transmutationist/fixist.

Paley was a product of his time.  It was widely believed at that time
that God didn't permit change.  Other scientists disagreed, and by the
time Darwin published, the idea of fixity of species was on the way
out.


     > 20th
    > century Fundamentalists accept Darwinian microevolution and a limited
    > role for natural selection: the Fundies are in your bed, Howard.

Sorry, Ray, but you are a fundamentalist, and they are your  own
bedfellows.  They deny science like you do.  The only difference is
that most creationists are aware that denying small level change that
can be directly observed only makes them look silly.   You apparently
have no problem with looking silly.


    > Nice
    > accomplishment: You have been able to convince mental retards that
    > species are mutable.

Except for you, who is apparently even more of a "mental retard".

    > Intelligent persons understand that Fundy support
    > is an insult. They are a reflection of your true intellectual state.

Ray, creationism has "fundy support".   If you were an intelligent
person, perhaps you'd see the irony in your statement.

    >
    > > His answer may not
    > > satisfy the religious, but it does accurately describe selection's
    > > conservative role.
    >
    > You seem to imply that Paley accepted natural selection.

He did, in a way.  He thought it only played a role in stablilization,
not change.

    > The concept
    > was not discovered until 1838.

Sorry, Ray, that's wrong.  Natural selection was known to ancient
Greeks, and was discussed among Muslim scholars in the middle ages.


    > The first scientific paper announcing
    > discovery did not appear until 1858. Paley died in 1805. Paley's
    > handling of the Malthusian population concept said the phenomenon
    > would PREVENT transmutation.

Which is saying that Paley knew about natural selection, but
misunderstood what it was capable of doing.

    > Darwinian explication says the exact
    > opposite. These basic facts expose your comment to be more gross
    > caricature (or inexcusable ignorance for a man with a doctorate).

And Howard knows the facts much better than you do, Ray.   You are
wrong, and Howard is correct.

    >
    > > Science always will and can only provide a proximal material
    > > explanation of how nature actually does work.  
    >
    > You have described Scientism, not Science.

No, he's describing actual science.  Your idea of "scientism" doesn't
exist.


    > Real Science accepts
    > theistic assumptions about nature.


How would such "Real Science" work?   If one assumes that a
supernatural being can alter reality, how can anything be tested?
How would one possibly rule out any hypothesis?   If you can always
assume your conclusion, any attempt at science is pointless.

    >
    > > There is a long history
    > > of Christian (or other religious) scientists (from before Darwin to
    > > the present) that regard what they are doing in science to be
    > > understanding how God's Nature works.  
    >
    > Yes, before the rise of Darwinism science accepted theistic
    > assumptions (ID) concerning nature.

Science never accepted "theistic assumptions" for the reason I just
stated above.   Individual scientists have believed in God, but they
knew that introducing the supernatural makes science impossilbe.

    >
    > > From their perspective there
    > > can never be conflict between what science finds and what God did even
    > > if there is conflict between a literal interpretation of the Bible and
    > > what nature says.  Whatever material nature shows us (and it clearly
    > > shows that mean population phenotypes and even metabolic capabilities

    > > can be changed by non-intelligent -- at least no detectable
    > > intelligent -- interaction of variations (that are random) and non-
    > > random environmental conditions) is the mechanism by which God works
    > > in the material world.  But these Christians who are scientists don't,
    > > unlike you, arrogantly assume that a book written by humans ever
    > > trumps empirical reality.
    >

> A ball of confusion/contradictions.

Which only means Ray can't address the points.


>
> You say "material nature shows....changed by non-intelligent....is the


    > mechanism by which God works in the material world."


If one believes that God is working in the material world.  That's a
religious belief, not a scientific position.


>
> How does "non-intelligent" (your term) indicate the work of God
> (Intelligence)?

The same way that a human intelligence uses tools that are not
intelligent.


> Of course you are summarizing the alleged position of
> Christian scientists. Do you really believe that these persons believe
> non-intelligence corresponds to front loading Intelligence?


Why not, Ray?  Just because you can't see it doesn't mean everyone is
as blind.


> How does
> non-intelligence indicate Intelligence (God)? Does not non-
> intelligence indicate absence of Intelligence?

Intelligent beings we know of use non intelligent objects and
processes all the time, Ray.   Humans use chemistry, which is non
intelligent to produce products.   Humans use tools which are not
intelligent to produce intelligently designed objects quite
frequently.  Do you imagine that the computer you are using is
intelligent?    "Non intelligence" does not indicate absence of
intelligence in the planning of using of the process.   This is why
you can't understand how science works.

>
> I look forward to your answers.

Your answers, however are only amusing in their lack of thought.


DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/19/11 10:17 AM 	

    On Apr 19, 2:21 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 19, 12:53 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >

[snip]

I have been recently reminded that the last time backspace was here,
he refused to even acknowledge much less respond to a detailed
description of what the terms "natural selection", "artificial
selection", and "neutral drift" mean.  He can read it here and tells
us where and how one can use his terminological gobbledeygook about
"pattern" and "design", where the former is (unlike its dictionary
definition) refers to non-intelligently made patterns and the latter
refers to intelligently made patterns.

After all if he is going to talk about NS, he should know what
biologists mean by the term.

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

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/19/11 10:18 AM 	

    On Apr 18, 11:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 17, 6:23 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > (2011/04/18 0:52), backspace wrote:
    > > > On Apr 17, 2:22 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    > > >> (2011/04/17 20:15), backspace wrote:

> > >>> On Apr 11, 7:42 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
>> design template . pattern is a homonym . the pattern of leaves
> represent only themselves . design is the representation of something
> other than itself. if the leaves were arranged in a palindromic


    > pattern it would be design like genetic grammar with palindromes in

> genes. palindromes are IC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey, I have a question.  Let's suppose that you wanted write out a
theory that explained how life changed over time through the action of
mutation and natural selection.  How would you word that theory?
Please avoid all tautologies.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 10:35 AM 	

Robert Chamber's book Vestiges , 1844 had a profound influence on
Darwin and was cited widely during this time for its astute scientific
logic such as for example describing the process of spontaneous
generation to be seen with spiders appearing out of thin air on the
ends of battery terminals. *Fitness* was the term uses as a proxy for
*spontaneous generation* or *constituted internal spontaneity* as
Aristotle put, quoted by Darwin as the inspiration for his natural
selection concept.

And Dana please modify the tone of your rhetorical questions, try and
be civil please.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 10:50 AM 	

hersheyh wrote:

The *protagonist* your forget to mention was backspace and there is no
direct link to the thread, please insert it.

''...http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010.html
August: Classifying Selection as Natural, Artificial, Neutral or by
Design
Howard Hershey uses five "tasty" color coded examples to help a
creationist understand the meaning of Natural Selection (NS) and its
various
forms....''

His name is Stephanus Rensburg South-Africa using alias backspace on
talk-origins.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 10:52 AM 	

Inez wrote:

Hey, Inez, how about you modify your tone?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	LT 	4/19/11 11:04 AM 	
> Hey, Inez, how about you modify your tone?- Hide quoted text -


    >
    > - Show quoted text -

What is wrong with her tone? Exactly nothing. She's trying to draw out
what your point is with all the word tennis. I've been reading this
thread for a while now, and you aren't making any kind of cogent
point, and you have been making up your own definitions of words.
Inez' approach makes sense in that she wants to see how you would
define the ToE. Otherwise, what is the point of this entire thread?

LT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/19/11 11:14 AM 	

That was the friendliest post I've made to you in a long time, so one
can only suppose that you're avoiding the question. Your argument
seems largely to be that the ToE is not worded meaninfully.  Fair
enough, so why don't you tell us what sort of thing you're looking
for.  I suspect that you want to deny any wording of a description of
evolution and are unwilling to accept any possible combination of
words, but go ahead, prove me wrong.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 11:23 AM 	


    hersheyh wrote:
    > On Apr 19, 2:21�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > On Apr 19, 12:53 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    > >
    > [snip]
    >
    > I have been recently reminded that the last time backspace was here,
    > he refused to even acknowledge much less respond to a detailed
    > description of what the terms "natural selection", "artificial
    > selection", and "neutral drift" mean.  He can read it here and tells
    > us where and how one can use his terminological gobbledeygook about
    > "pattern" and "design", where the former is (unlike its dictionary
    > definition) refers to non-intelligently made patterns and the latter
    > refers to intelligently made patterns.
    >
    > After all if he is going to talk about NS, he should know what
    > biologists mean by the term.
    >
    > http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_08.html

Howard posted :
To summarize: This is an example of "natural selection", that is,
significant differential reproductive success of one phenotype rather
than the alternative in the absence of human intervention in a
specified environment (Lake Monroe that year). It is the absence of
conscious human intervention that makes this "selection" "natural"
rather than "artificial" in Darwin's terminology. Because there was no
observable "designer" involved that had the intent or consciousness of
selectively changing the ratio from the expectations of a "random
pattern", one cannot call this example of "natural selection"
"design". The result due to this "natural selection" is a "pattern"
and specifically a "non-random pattern" because of the differential
selection and the absence of a designer.

As far as I can see the whole process of Oyster gene mixing is
something which represents itself, thus a pattern and specifically a
random pattern as in what happens, happens due to circumstance .  But
I will have to read the whole section of Aug.2010 POTM again at a
later date, now I have a head-ache, been to busy trading EURUSD on
forex the whole day.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/19/11 11:40 AM 	
On Apr 19, 10:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

    > Robert Chamber's book Vestiges , 1844 had a profound influence on
    > Darwin and was cited widely during this time for its astute scientific
    > logic such as for example describing the process of spontaneous
    > generation to be seen with spiders appearing out of thin air on the
    > ends of battery terminals.

<snip>

Chambers' book says nothing of the sort, of course.  Google books has
a complete scan of the 1844 edition of you'd like to verify this
yourself.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	johnetho...@yahoo.com 	4/19/11 11:50 AM 	

It's very rare that backspace posts anything that is even coherent.
Coherent and true is no doubt way beyond his abilities.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	johnetho...@yahoo.com 	4/19/11 11:52 AM 	

What's wrong with the tone, other than her asking you to actually say
something specific and coherent? Or is that alone enough to make it
objectionable?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 12:37 PM 	


    Garamond Lethe wrote:
    > On Apr 19, 10:35�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > Robert Chamber's book Vestiges , 1844 had a profound influence on
    > > Darwin and was cited widely during this time for its astute scientific
    > > logic such as for example describing the process of spontaneous
    > > generation to be seen with spiders appearing out of thin air on the
    > > ends of battery terminals.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Chambers' book says nothing of the sort, of course.  Google books has
    > a complete scan of the 1844 edition of you'd like to verify this
    > yourself.

http://www.archive.org/stream/vestigesnatural01bosagoog/vestigesnatural01bosagoog_djvu.txt
'''....he same truth is shown in the production of the acarus Crossii
(p. 185, &c), the greatest boast of philosopjiical pretension, and now
almost a trite phaenomenon. Mr. Crosse and Mr. Weekes set a galvanic
battery to work upon some distilled water and the purest silicate
of potash or other substance. In some weeks time an insect is
produced .......'''

I meant insect, spider is the vernacular for insect.


http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VesTiges

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 12:44 PM 	

After reading her post again, I don't see why I had to snap back like
that and apologize.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/19/11 12:56 PM 	

    On Apr 18, 8:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 18, 7:53 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > On Apr 17, 7:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 17, 10:12 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On Apr 15, 5:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > On Apr 15, 11:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >

    > > > > > > On Apr 15, 9:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 2:36 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > > > > On 14/04/11 20:08, backspace wrote:
    >
    > > > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >> (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    > > > > > > > > >>>> backspace wrote:
    > > > > > > > > >>>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    > > > > > > > > >>>> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
    > > > > > > > > >>>> would say yes.
    >
    > > > > > > > > >>>> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
    > > > > > > > > >>>> have in mind?
    >
    > > > > > > > > >>>> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > > > > > > > >>>> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > > > > > > > >>>> a tautology?
    >
    > > > > > > > > >>>> David
    >
    > > > > > > > > >>> Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >
    > > > > > > > > >> One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
    > > > > > > > > >> is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
    > > > > > > > > >> have very different meanings depending on the context.
    >
    > > > > > > > > > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
    >
    > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as random natural selection. I suppose you can
    > > > > > > > > have a situation where reproductive success is completely random, in
    > > > > > > > > which case you'll still get allele changes over time but AFAIK that's
    > > > > > > > > called drift, not selection.
    >
    > > > > > > > > You might be confusing mutations with natural selection.
    >
    > > > > > > > lets map : natural<=>preferential, selection <=> decision.
    >

    > > > In the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate "natural" always means "non-
    > > > supernatural" and/or "absence of Intelligence." The fact is basic,
    > > > elementary, fundamental and rudimentary. Darwin 1859 dethroned
    > > > Creationism and Paleyan ID.
    >
    > > Darwin's ideas certainly were not those of a fundamentalist
    > > creationist Biblical literalist like yourself.  
    >

> Evasion by non-sequitur (Intelligent persons know what this means).

Apparently that leaves you out.  What I said was neither evasion nor a
non-sequitur.  But that isn't surprising.

    > > And, unlike the
    > > theologian Paley, he did provide a proximal material mechanism to
    > > explain change in organismal form.  
    >
    > Nonsense.

Which is nonsense?  That Paley did not provide a proximal material
mechanism to explain change in organismal form (Paley described
differential death of the sick and ill-formed as the proximal material
mechanism that God used to *prevent* change in organismal form)?  Or
that Darwin recognized that the mechanism Paley described could, over
sufficient time, produce *adaptive* change in organismal form?


    >
    > You are engaged in caricature: enlarging a minor aspect to be a major
    > feature. And Arch-Deacon Paley was also a first-rate biologist.

It is no insult to point out that Paley was first and foremost a
theologian.   The Church is where he spent his life.  Like Darwin, he
was strongly opposed to the slave trade.  He also advocated the right
of the poor to food, freedom for the American colonies, the graduated
income tax to limit excessive accumulations of wealth (something
Republican politicians have forgotten), and allowing middle-class
women to have careers (he knew that poor women already worked).  In
the process of "talking truth to power", especially with respect to
the system of property ownership and the excessive use of the death
penalty for stealing bread, pickpockets, etc., he ruined his chances
of becoming bishop.  In short, Paley was a basically good, admirable,
and thoughtful man for his (and in some ways even present) times.  As
a biologist, he was, however, an amateur at best.  Certainly I have
seen nothing in his biography that indicates more than the level of
expertise expected of a well-educated man of his time.  Natural
Theology's title is accurate.


    >
    > > But Paley was not a fundamentalist
    > > either, and did ask, in his Natural Theology, the hard questions about
    > > why nature was often so cruel and wasteful.  
    >

> That's right: my scientific master was not a Fundamentalist. Your


    > incessant habit of attempting to cast me as a Fundy, despite the fact
    > that I am a declared disciple of Paley, is falsified by your own pen.

Anyone who believes in a liter...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Greg G. 	4/19/11 1:46 PM 	
On Apr 19, 2:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
...


    > I meant insect, spider is the vernacular for insect.

Not in English. The word "bugs" might be less specific enough to apply
to either, but spiders and insects are specific enough terms to be
exclusive of one other for use in conversation with anybody with a
minimal knowledge of biology. Spiders have eight legs and insects have
six.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/19/11 2:00 PM 	
On Apr 19, 12:44 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:


    > > On Apr 19, 10:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > Inez wrote:
    > > > > On Apr 18, 11:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > On Apr 17, 6:23 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > > (2011/04/18 0:52), backspace wrote:
    > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2:22 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > >> (2011/04/17 20:15), backspace wrote:

    > > > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 7:42 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

> that and apologize.-

So...is there any chance of you answering my question?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Garamond Lethe 	4/19/11 2:03 PM 	

    On Apr 19, 12:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Garamond Lethe wrote:
    > > On Apr 19, 10:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > <snip>
    >
    > > > Robert Chamber's book Vestiges , 1844 had a profound influence on
    > > > Darwin and was cited widely during this time for its astute scientific
    > > > logic such as for example describing the process of spontaneous
    > > > generation to be seen with spiders appearing out of thin air on the
    > > > ends of battery terminals.
    >
    > > <snip>
    >
    > > Chambers' book says nothing of the sort, of course.  Google books has
    > > a complete scan of the 1844 edition of you'd like to verify this
    > > yourself.
    >

> http://www.archive.org/stream/vestigesnatural01bosagoog/vestigesnatur...


    > '''....he same truth is shown in the production of the acarus Crossii
    > (p. 185, &c), the greatest boast of philosopjiical pretension, and now
    > almost a trite phaenomenon. Mr. Crosse and Mr. Weekes set a galvanic
    > battery to work upon some distilled water and the purest silicate
    > of potash or other substance. In some weeks time an insect is
    > produced .......'''
    >

    > I meant insect, spider is the vernacular for insect.
    >

> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VesTiges

Quite the vivid image, isn't it?  Coming back to your experiment after
a few weeks and finding it had generated an.... insect.  What do you
imagine that would look like?  A housefly, perhaps?  Something larger?

We don't have to guess.

"The insects produced by both experimentalists seem to have been the
same, a species of acarus, minute and semi-transparent..."

Wikipedia picks up the tale from there:

"Crosse did not claim that he created the insects; he instead assumed
that there were embedded insect eggs in his samples. Later
commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese  or dust
mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments."

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

A few *newspaper* writers thought he had claimed to have created life,
and that's frankly a far more interesting (albeit fictional) story
than the actual results given by the actual person running the
experiment.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/19/11 4:31 PM 	

    On Apr 19, 11:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 19, 5:17 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > > On Apr 18, 6:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 18, 7:53 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >

> > snip


    >
    > > > > > In the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate "natural" always means "non-
    > > > > > supernatural" and/or "absence of Intelligence." The fact is basic,
    > > > > > elementary, fundamental and rudimentary. Darwin 1859 dethroned
    > > > > > Creationism and Paleyan ID.
    >
    > > > > Darwin's ideas certainly were not those of a fundamentalist
    > > > > creationist Biblical literalist like yourself.
    >
    > > > Evasion by non-sequitur
    >

    > > Ray, this was not an evasion, or a non sequitur. You need to learn
    > > what terms mean before you try to use them.
    >

    > > > (Intelligent persons know what this means).
    >

    > > Which obviously leaves Ray out....
    >

    > > > > And, unlike the
    > > > > theologian Paley, he did provide a proximal material mechanism to
    > > > > explain change in organismal form.
    >
    > > > Nonsense.
    >

    > > Yes, your reply is nonsense. You don't need to call your shots like
    > > that.
    >

    > > > You are engaged in caricature: enlarging a minor aspect to be a major
    > > > feature. And Arch-Deacon Paley was also a first-rate biologist.
    >

    > > Be that as it may, Darwin did provide a mechanism to explain change in
    > > species. Paley did not provide a mechanism by which he felt God
    > > acted.
    >

    > > > > But Paley was not a fundamentalist
    > > > > either, and did ask, in his Natural Theology, the hard questions about
    > > > > why nature was often so cruel and wasteful.
    >
    > > > That's right: my scientific master was not a Fundamentalist.
    >

    > > But you, Ray, are one. Also, your 'scientific master' was wrong
    > > about his claims. The appearance of design is not proof that God
    > > exists.
    >

    > > > Your
    > > > incessant habit of attempting to cast me as a Fundy, despite the fact
    > > > that I am a declared disciple of Paley, is falsified by your own pen.
    >

    > > Except that you, Ray are a "fundy", in that you follow fundamentalist
    > > beliefs regarding the Bible, and religion in general. Howard's point
    > > is that Paley himself was not a fundamentalist, but you, are.
    >
    > > > Paley was the quintessential anti-transmutationist/fixist.
    >
    > > Paley was a product of his time. It was widely believed at that time
    > > that God didn't permit change. Other scientists disagreed, and by the
    > > time Darwin published, the idea of fixity of species was on the way
    > > out.
    >

    > Robert Chamber's book Vestiges , 1844 had a profound influence on
    > Darwin and was cited widely during this time for its astute scientific
    > logic such as for example describing the process of spontaneous
    > generation to be seen with spiders appearing out of thin air on the

    > ends of battery terminals. *Fitness* was the term uses as a proxy for
    > *spontaneous generation* or *constituted internal spontaneity* as
    > Aristotle put, quoted by Darwin as the inspiration for his natural
    > selection concept.

Darwin did not use "fitness" as a replacement for "spontaneous
generation".  Where do you get the idea that he did?


    >
    > And Dana please modify the tone of your rhetorical questions, try and
    > be civil please.

What makes you think my questions are rhetorical?   Also, I'm always
civil.  Perhaps you should speak to Ray about toning down his bile now
and then.

DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 10:24 PM 	
On Apr 19, 10:46 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...


    >
    > > I meant insect, spider is the vernacular for insect.
    >

    > Not in English. The word "bugs" might be less specific enough to apply
    > to either, but spiders and insects are specific enough terms to be
    > exclusive of one other for use in conversation with anybody with a
    > minimal knowledge of biology. Spiders have eight legs and insects have
    > six.

both breath through their body hence spider or insect can be used
interchangeably with this concept in mind.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 10:29 PM 	

not really, it begs the question.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 10:33 PM 	
On Apr 19, 11:03 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 12:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > > On Apr 19, 10:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>


    >
    > > > > Robert Chamber's book Vestiges , 1844 had a profound influence on
    > > > > Darwin and was cited widely during this time for its astute scientific
    > > > > logic such as for example describing the process of spontaneous
    > > > > generation to be seen with spiders appearing out of thin air on the
    > > > > ends of battery terminals.
    >

    > > > <snip>
    >
    > > > Chambers' book says nothing of the sort, of course. Google books has
    > > > a complete scan of the 1844 edition of you'd like to verify this
    > > > yourself.
    >
    > >http://www.archive.org/stream/vestigesnatural01bosagoog/vestigesnatur...
    > > '''....he same truth is shown in the production of the acarus Crossii
    > > (p. 185, &c), the greatest boast of philosopjiical pretension, and now
    > > almost a trite phaenomenon. Mr. Crosse and Mr. Weekes set a galvanic
    > > battery to work upon some distilled water and the purest silicate
    > > of potash or other substance. In some weeks time an insect is
    > > produced .......'''
    >

    > > I meant insect, spider is the vernacular for insect.
    >

    > >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VesTiges
    >
    > Quite the vivid image, isn't it?  Coming back to your experiment after
    > a few weeks and finding it had generated an.... insect.  What do you
    > imagine that would look like?  A housefly, perhaps?  Something larger?
    >
    > We don't have to guess.
    >
    > "The insects produced by both experimentalists seem to have been the
    > same, a species of acarus, minute and semi-transparent..."
    >
    > Wikipedia picks up the tale from there:
    >
    > "Crosse did not claim that he created the insects; he instead assumed
    > that there were embedded insect eggs in his samples. Later
    > commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese  or dust
    > mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments."
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse
    >
    > A few *newspaper* writers thought he had claimed to have created life,
    > and that's frankly a far more interesting (albeit fictional) story
    > than the actual results given by the actual person running the
    > experiment.

Andrew Crosse (June 17, 1784 – July 6, 1855) was a British amateur
scientist who was born and died at Fyne Court, Broomfield, Somerset.[1]
[2] Crosse was an early pioneer and experimenter in the use of
electricity and one of the last of the 'gentlemen scientists'. He
became widely known and somewhat notorious after press reporting of a
1836 electrocrystallization experiment during which insects
'appeared'.

Vestiges was published 1844, Chambers had eight years to check the
facts, it seems that spont. generation is what he wanted to believe.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/19/11 10:43 PM 	

    On Apr 20, 7:33 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Other scientists tried to repeat the experiment. W. H. Weeks took
extensive measures to assure a sealed environment for his experiment
by placing it inside a bell jar. He obtained the same results as
Crosse, but due to the controversy that Crosse's experiment had
sparked his work was never published

if the results were never published how did Chambers get the
information, he most probably had personal correspondence withWeeks.
This issue seems to be one those saga's where everybody has bits of
the truth and bits of lies, so that in the end we probably won't know
who said , did what , when and where.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Walter Bushell 	4/19/11 11:19 PM 	
In article
<645ad1e3-d4f9-43c0-b8cb-4b554710f140@hg8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
 "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 2:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...


    > > I meant insect, spider is the vernacular for insect.
    >

    > Not in English. The word "bugs" might be less specific enough to apply
    > to either, but spiders and insects are specific enough terms to be
    > exclusive of one other for use in conversation with anybody with a
    > minimal knowledge of biology. Spiders have eight legs and insects have
    > six.

But if an insect underwent a mutation that resulted in eight legs, the
result would still be an insect. A Hox upon it.

-- 
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	drma...@gmail.com 	4/20/11 5:28 AM 	
In article
<bb463031-1ee3-4025-97dd-2fe81321bffc@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
 backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does random mean non-directed

Random means whatever you want it to mean. If your argument requires
random to mean non-directed, then that's what it means. If not, then
random means directed.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/20/11 7:52 AM 	
On Apr 19, 10:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 19, 11:00 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 19, 12:44 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
    > > > > On Apr 19, 10:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > Inez wrote:
    > > > > > > On Apr 18, 11:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 6:23 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > > > > (2011/04/18 0:52), backspace wrote:
    > > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2:22 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > > > >> (2011/04/17 20:15), backspace wrote:

    > > > > > > > > >>> On Apr 11, 7:42 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > > > >>>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

> not really, it begs the question.-

What begs what question?  I'm not asking you to believe in evolution,
only think of a way to describe it that you would accept as
meaningful. Can you not do that?  Why not?

Backspace pulls a Tony; was Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/20/11 10:05 AM 	
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:13:04 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

>On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:38:27 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:32:55 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:32:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>>>>><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
><snip>


    >
    >>>>>>Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
    >

>>>>>Depends entirely on context. For example, the (100%
>>>>>predictable, and therefore non-random) reaction between HF
>>>>>and NaOH is 100% non-directed. Unless you have in mind(?)
>>>>>some meaning for "directed" other than "directed by an
>>>>>intelligent agent". Do you?
>
>Still waiting, BS; it's been a week now...
>
>>>>>And is there some arcane point of logic or language, one
>>>>>which is demonstrably incorrect as usual, you wished to
>>>>>make? If so, please just say it
>
>Still waiting, BS...
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/20/11 10:05 AM 	
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:28:16 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by drma...@gmail.com:

>In article
><bb463031-1ee3-4025-97dd-2fe81321bffc@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,


    > backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Does random mean non-directed
    >

    >Random means whatever you want it to mean. If your argument requires
    >random to mean non-directed, then that's what it means. If not, then
    >random means directed.

Ah, the Humpty Dumpty option...


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/20/11 1:12 PM 	
On Apr 20, 2:28 pm, drmat...@gmail.com wrote:
> In article
> <bb463031-1ee3-4025-97dd-2fe81321b...@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,


    >
    >  backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > Random means whatever you want it to mean. If your argument requires
    > random to mean non-directed, then that's what it means. If not, then
    > random means directed.


Cognitive psychologists have identified various illusions and biases,
such as the confirmation bias, illusory
correlations, hindsight bias, etc. that explain erroneous  beliefs.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/20/11 1:25 PM 	

    On Apr 20, 2:28 pm, drmat...@gmail.com wrote:
    > In article
    > <bb463031-1ee3-4025-97dd-2fe81321b...@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
    >
    >  backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > Random means whatever you want it to mean. If your argument requires
    > random to mean non-directed, then that's what it means. If not, then
    > random means directed.

what would you say does non-random mean in the entry below, I would
say directed.

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

The clustering illusion refers to the tendency to erroneously perceive
small samples from random distributions as having significant
"streaks" or "clusters", caused by a human tendency to underpredict
the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random
or semi-random data due to chance.[1]
Thomas Gilovich found that most people thought that the sequence
OXXXOXXXOXXOOOXOOXXOO
[2] looked non-random, when, in fact, it has several characteristics
maximally probable for a "random" stream, such as an equal number of
each result and an equal number of adjacent results with the same
outcome for both possible outcomes. In sequences like this, people
seem to expect to see a greater number of alternations than one would
predict statistically. The probability of an alternation in a sequence
of independent random binary events is 0.5, yet people seem to expect
an alternation rate of about 0.7.[3] In fact, in a short number of
trials, variability and non-random-looking "streaks" are quite
probable.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/21/11 6:36 AM 	

    On 20/04/11 21:25, backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 20, 2:28 pm, drmat...@gmail.com wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <bb463031-1ee3-4025-97dd-2fe81321b...@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
    >>
    >>  backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> Does random mean non-directed
    >>
    >> Random means whatever you want it to mean. If your argument requires
    >> random to mean non-directed, then that's what it means. If not, then
    >> random means directed.
    >
    > what would you say does non-random mean in the entry below, I would
    > say directed.

I wouldn't.

Good thing that was cleared up !

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
    >
    > The clustering illusion refers to the tendency to erroneously perceive
    > small samples from random distributions as having significant
    > "streaks" or "clusters", caused by a human tendency to underpredict
    > the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random
    > or semi-random data due to chance.[1]
    > Thomas Gilovich found that most people thought that the sequence
    > OXXXOXXXOXXOOOXOOXXOO
    > [2] looked non-random, when, in fact, it has several characteristics
    > maximally probable for a "random" stream, such as an equal number of
    > each result and an equal number of adjacent results with the same
    > outcome for both possible outcomes. In sequences like this, people
    > seem to expect to see a greater number of alternations than one would
    > predict statistically. The probability of an alternation in a sequence
    > of independent random binary events is 0.5, yet people seem to expect
    > an alternation rate of about 0.7.[3] In fact, in a short number of
    > trials, variability and non-random-looking "streaks" are quite
    > probable.
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/21/11 11:55 AM 	

Mix black and white marbles in a container, then perform a probability
sample by selecting any marble(without looking) at random from the
container. If the marble is white, place it in a row, until all the
white marbles are in the row.

To an observer seeing only these XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.....XXXXXXX(white)
marbles he would view the process as non-random.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion used non-random in
the same sense.

natural selection to John Burroughs back in 1921 was a blind random,
chance concept as in random ns. When Dawkins says 'non-random ns'  ,
what does he mean with non-random?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/24/11 10:14 PM 	


arkalan if the person selecting(decision) for the white markbles did
not *direct* the outcome in a non-random way, what then would an
atheist imply with *directed*?
In other words what is going on in our culture the last 150 years is
that words which everybody used to imply a conscious being were
hijacked and the exact opposite meaning invoked. It is a process of
making society insane that has been so succesful that even Ken Ham
says ''' I believe in ns''.

Even the YEC have capitulated because at University and High schools
you wont' get your diploma unless you like a target of Inquisition
torture answer their loaded questions. The Inquisition used to ask
their victims to answer either yes or no, but either answer would
incriminate them as in 'do you still beat your wife''.  Satan and the
Atheists are laughing at Ken Ham, Dembski, steven Meyer because they
dictate the form any yes,no answer must take.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/25/11 7:55 AM 	

    > Mix black and white marbles in a container, then perform a probability
    > sample by selecting any marble(without looking) at random from the
    > container. If the marble is white, place it in a row, until all the
    > white marbles are in the row.
    >
    > To an observer seeing only these XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.....XXXXXXX(white)

> marbles he would view the process as non-random.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusionused non-random in


    > the same sense.
    >
    > natural selection to John Burroughs back in 1921 was a blind random,
    > chance concept as in random ns. When Dawkins says 'non-random ns'  ,
    > what does he mean with non-random?

A *result* that differs from the mathematical expectation of blind
random chance.  It is the result which is non-random.  It is non-
random regardless of whether the difference from blind random chance
is due to a person, an invisible god, or a natural environmental
condition that biases the results.  Did you seriously not know this?

In the case of ns, where "natural" is defined to exclude human action
(or at least conscious human action with foreknowledge of an end goal
or no ability to generate such an end goal -- see example of human
action without foreknowledge of end goal as example 4 in the post you
consistently refuse to respond to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_08.html   ), the non-
random environment biases the result from the expectations of pure
randomness because it meets the _post facto_ requirement of non-
randomness in the absence of the action of any *known* or *knowable*
conscious agent, just due to the environmental conditions.

	unk...@googlegroups.com 	4/25/11 1:00 PM 	<This message has been deleted.>
Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Randy C 	4/25/11 1:08 PM 	
> Atheists would not support NS if NS supported the existence of
> invisible God.

> Ray

If they did so they would no longer be atheists.  But rational people
support the truth, regardless of its theological implications.

It is more accurate to say that creationists do not support
evolutionary theories including NS simply because it supports the fact
that the Bible is a book filled with myths, contradictions,
inconsistencies and failed prophecies.

But many many random events in the natural world introduce order.  The
motion of waves on a beach will sort rocks in the water, moving the
smaller ones closer to shore will leaving the larger ones in the
deeper water.  Waves are fairly random in size and, to some extent in
frequency.  Yet they introduce order.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/27/11 4:02 AM 	
> > marbles he would view the process as non-random.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusionusednon-random in


    > > the same sense.
    >
    > > natural selection to John Burroughs back in 1921 was a blind random,
    > > chance concept as in random ns. When Dawkins says 'non-random ns'  ,
    > > what does he mean with non-random?
    >
    > A *result* that differs from the mathematical expectation of blind
    > random chance.  It is the result which is non-random.  It is non-
    > random regardless of whether the difference from blind random chance
    > is due to a person, an invisible god, or a natural environmental
    > condition that biases the results.  Did you seriously not know this?
    >
    > In the case of ns, where "natural" is defined to exclude human action
    > (or at least conscious human action with foreknowledge of an end goal
    > or no ability to generate such an end goal -- see example of human
    > action without foreknowledge of end goal as example 4 in the post you
    > consistently refuse to respond to:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_08.html  ), the non-
    > random environment biases the result from the expectations of pure
    > randomness because it meets the _post facto_ requirement of non-
    > randomness in the absence of the action of any *known* or *knowable*
    > conscious agent, just due to the environmental conditions.

John Tyndall used 'differential' and differential reproductive success
would be an accurate description of what he described below. Note how
he cites Darwin and Bruno ''.. Darwin, like Bruno, rejects the notion
of creative power acting after human fashion....'' Yet , in his
Belfast address he affirms that 'nature selects, most assuredly'  In
other words Tyndall believed that the random flux of a tornado and the
random collision of the atoms in his head are basically the same,
consciousness is matter in motion.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A12&keywords=goethe&pageseq=63
The struggle for food again supervenes, and those to whom the
favourable quality has been transmitted in excess will assuredly
triumph. It is easy to see that we have here the addition of
increments favourable to the individual still more rigorously carried
out than in the case of domestication; for not only are unfavourable
specimens not selected by nature, but they are destroyed. This is what
Mr. Darwin calls 'Natural Selection,' which 'acts by the preservation
and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to
the preserved being.' With this idea he interpenetrates and leavens
the vast store of facts that he and others have collected. We cannot,
without shutting our eyes through fear or prejudice, fail to see that
Darwin is here dealing, not with imaginary, but with true causes; nor
can we fail to discern what vast modifications may be produced by
natural selection in periods sufficiently long. Each individual
increment may resemble what mathematicians call a 'differential' (a
quantity indefinitely small); but definite and great changes may
obviously be produced by the integration of these infinitesimal
quantities through practically infinite time.

If Darwin, like Bruno, rejects the notion of creative power acting
after human fashion, it certainly is not because he is unacquainted
with the numberless exquisite adaptations on which this notion of a
supernatural artificer has been founded. His book is a repository of
the most startling facts of this description. Take the marvellous
observation which he cites from Dr. Crüger, where a bucket with an
aperture, serving as a spout, is formed in an orchid. Bees visit the
flower: in eager search of material for their combs they push each
other into the bucket, the drenched ones escaping from their
involuntary
[page] 42
bath by the spout

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/27/11 4:04 AM 	

Do you mean they introduce information(order)? If so, Information
involves a signal sender and receiver with a decoding /encodeing
mechanism using a pattern that represents something other than itself.
In the motion of waves what is the signal, sender, receiver, encoder
and decoder?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/27/11 5:10 AM 	

How about if the white marbles are heavier than the black marbles ? If
you shake the container, the white marbles will end up on the bottom and
the black ones on top. Very non-random. You could call it "directed" in
a mechanistic, non-intelligent sense of the word I suppose, but that's
not the sense of "directed" you seem to be using.

    >
    > natural selection to John Burroughs back in 1921 was a blind random,
    > chance concept as in random ns. When Dawkins says 'non-random ns'  ,
    > what does he mean with non-random?
    > 

He means that certain characteristics will be selected more than others
depending on the environment. I have no idea what Burroughs meant by
"random natural selection". Googling suggests he had trouble with the
idea that humans hadn't been intelligently designed, so he'd use
"random" as "not intelligently designed". Which seems to be the same
definition of "random" as you want to use, but it's not the one used by
most scientists and it's not a very useful definition.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/27/11 5:14 AM 	

It does ? There backspace goes, asserting his own definitions are truth
again.

    > In the motion of waves what is the signal, sender, receiver, encoder
    > and decoder?
    >

I want to play ! The signal is the non-random pattern of rocks on a
beach. The sender is the beach. The encoder is the waves. The decoder is
the pattern-recognition modules in whichever brain happens to look at
the beach.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/27/11 5:25 AM 	

In that specific example the human did direct the outcome, and they did
do it in a non-random way. And the result of the experiment is indeed
"directed". And it is "non-random". But that doesn't mean that
"directed" and "non-random" are the same thing, just like a blond guy
with big feet doesn't prove that "blond" and "big feet" are the same thing.

Take a fair coin toss. That is done by humans, using human tools, for
human ends, using human intelligence all the way. Sounds directed to me.
Yet the outcome of a coin toss is random.

On the other hand many processes result in non-random outcomes without
being directed by a human intelligence. A few have been given to you,
and earlier I brought up crystals which you didn't respond to.

It might be possible to call those processes "directed" but it's in a
mechanistic, non-conscious sense of the term.

It is simply not the case that "random" and "directed by an
intelligence" form a dichotomy.

    > In other words what is going on in our culture the last 150 years is
    > that words which everybody used to imply a conscious being were
    > hijacked and the exact opposite meaning invoked.

If you don't want "directed" to be used when no conscious being is
involved then don't use it. And in that case, "directed" and
"non-random" are two very different things.

    > It is a process of
    > making society insane that has been so succesful that even Ken Ham
    > says ''' I believe in ns''.

Oh, so everyone ELSE is crazy. Look out backspace, you're the only one
left ! If you're not careful the zombies might get you too !!!

    >
    > Even the YEC have capitulated because at University and High schools
    > you wont' get your diploma unless you like a target of Inquisition
    > torture answer their loaded questions. The Inquisition used to ask
    > their victims to answer either yes or no, but either answer would
    > incriminate them as in 'do you still beat your wife''.  Satan and the
    > Atheists are laughing at Ken Ham, Dembski, steven Meyer because they
    > dictate the form any yes,no answer must take.
    >
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	4/27/11 9:41 AM 	

Directed usually implies intent and control by a mind.

Selected does not, necessarily.

    > In other words what is going on in our culture the last 150 years is
    > that words which everybody used to imply a conscious being were

> hijacked and the exact opposite meaning invoked. It is a process of


    > making society insane that has been so succesful that even Ken Ham
    > says ''' I believe in ns''.

Actually it is borderline pathological to be interested in language
and deny that it does not nor should not change over time.

A common way for words to change is to use them metaphorically. In
time the  metaphor is forgotten and the new use replaces or is
parallel to the older usage.

"Buttons" on your cell phone, for example. Why don't you rant about
those?

    >
    > Even the YEC have capitulated because at University and High schools
    > you wont' get your diploma unless you like a target of Inquisition
    > torture answer their loaded questions. The Inquisition used to ask
    > their victims to answer either yes or no, but either answer would
    > incriminate them as in 'do you still beat your wife''.  Satan and the
    > Atheists are laughing at Ken Ham, Dembski, steven Meyer because they
    > dictate the form any yes,no answer must take.

No, science-literate people laugh at Ken Ham because he's a lying,
ignorant, self-obsessed goofball.

Language lives(1) and therefore evolves(1) or dies(1).

Modern English is not the language of God. It didn't exist. 2000 years
ago.


(1) Metaphor alert!

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/27/11 10:19 AM 	

Your premise is that mind is matter. The YEC, theist, old earth etc
that mind is neither time,matter or energy.
Either premise is one of belief as per Godel's theorem which states:
Anything which you might, do , say or think rests ultimately on an
unproven assumption. Such assumption allows you to engage the world in
a rational manner but only because you believe by faith that the
assumption is true.

The Bible itself alluded to this by stating that God called those
things that were not as though they were. Thus the only evidence that
God himself has is his faith. (note I am not really sure about
this.....work in progress.... feel free to disagree)


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/27/11 10:23 AM 	

    > Selected does not, necessarily.
    >
    > > In other words what is going on in our culture the last 150 years is
    > > that words which everybody used to imply a conscious being were
    > > hijacked and the exact opposite meaning invoked. It is a process of
    > > making society insane that has been so succesful that even Ken Ham
    > > says ''' I believe in ns''.
    >
    > Actually it is borderline pathological to be interested in language
    > and deny that it does not nor should not change over time.
    >
    > A common way for words to change is to use them metaphorically.

The object 'selection,decision,non-random' did not change because they
don't mean anything.They symbolically represented a concept such as
pattern-design dichotomy , such concept is no longer accepted by
mainstream culture as explained at my wiki. Google tautology + darwin,
it is listed at nr3. out of 140,000 hits.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/27/11 10:28 AM 	

    On Apr 27, 1:04 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 25, 10:08 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > > Atheists would not support NS if NS supported the existence of
    > > > invisible God.
    > > > Ray
    >
    > > If they did so they would no longer be atheists.  But rational people
    > > support the truth, regardless of its theological implications.
    >
    > > It is more accurate to say that creationists do not support
    > > evolutionary theories including NS simply because it supports the fact
    > > that the Bible is a book filled with myths, contradictions,
    > > inconsistencies and failed prophecies.
    >
    > > But many many random events in the natural world introduce order.  The
    > > motion of waves on a beach will sort rocks in the water, moving the
    > > smaller ones closer to shore will leaving the larger ones in the
    > > deeper water.  Waves are fairly random in size and, to some extent in
    > > frequency.  Yet they introduce order.
    >
    > Do you mean they introduce information(order)? If so, Information
    > involves a signal sender and receiver with a decoding /encodeing
    > mechanism using a pattern that represents something other than itself.

    > In the motion of waves what is the signal, sender, receiver, encoder
    > and decoder?

In Shanon's theorem he used the motion of copper atoms or electrical
current(a pattern that only represents itself) to represent something
other than electrical current - information.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/27/11 9:29 AM 	

How did that sentence imply that premise in any way, shape or form ?
It's like you're not just making up your own language, your making up
ours too.

    > The YEC, theist, old earth etc
    > that mind is neither time,matter or energy.
    > Either premise is one of belief as per Godel's theorem which states:
    > Anything which you might, do , say or think rests ultimately on an
    > unproven assumption. Such assumption allows you to engage the world in
    > a rational manner but only because you believe by faith that the
    > assumption is true.

For one thing, why would the premise that mind is or isn't matter be the
unproven assumption everything is based on ? As far as I know the
unproven assumption science runs on is that the Universe is consistent
and understandable.

And for the other thing, of course science doesn't do proof so unproven
assumptions are kind of a given. Actually when you go with mounting
evidence instead of proof, then the fact that your assumptions permit
you to find out more and more about the world in a consistent manner
counts as evidence in favor of those assumptions being correct.

So instead of a perfect glass castle of logic built on the air of
unproven assumptions, you have a house of imperfect wood and brick built
on an imperfect foundation of concrete, with bits falling off once in
awhile and being rebuilt stronger when they do. We build the house
hoping that the foundation is solid, with the confidence that every
story successfully added to the house is further evidence that the
foundation is indeed that solid, and that anyway if it cracked we'd
simply look for a way to fix it.

    >
    > The Bible itself alluded to this by stating that God called those
    > things that were not as though they were. Thus the only evidence that
    > God himself has is his faith. (note I am not really sure about
    > this.....work in progress.... feel free to disagree)
    >
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/27/11 3:39 PM 	
> Your premise is that mind is matter. The YEC, theist, old earth etc


    > that mind is neither time,matter or energy.
    > Either premise is one of belief as per Godel's theorem which states:
    > Anything which you might, do , say or think rests ultimately on an
    > unproven assumption.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Goedel.
His first theorem (which I think is the one you are abusing here)
simply states that no constructive  theory that is rich enough to
express elementary arithmetic is  both  consistent and complete. It
does not apply to any theory that is not rich enough to express at
least Peano arithmetic, to start with. And while it is true that for
every constructive  theory that proves certain basic arithmetic
truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not
provable _in_ the theory, this does not  mean that that statement is
not provable simpliciter - you can prove it in another theory, or
through non-constructive means, after all, that;s how we know it is
true.

    > Such assumption allows you to engage the world in
    > a rational manner but only because you believe by faith that the
    > assumption is true.
    >

    > The Bible itself alluded to this by stating that God called those
    > things that were not as though they were. Thus the only evidence that
    > God himself has is his faith. (note I am not really sure about
    > this.....work in progress.... feel free to disagree)


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Dana Tweedy 	4/27/11 8:50 PM 	
On 4/25/11 2:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:55 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:

    >> Mix black and white marbles in a container, then perform a probability
    >> sample by selecting any marble(without looking) at random from the
    >> container. If the marble is white, place it in a row, until all the
    >> white marbles are in the row.
    >>
    >> To an observer seeing only these XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.....XXXXXXX(white)

>> marbles he would view the process as non-random.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusionused non-random in
>> the same sense.
>>


    >> natural selection to John Burroughs back in 1921 was a blind random,
    >> chance concept as in random ns. When Dawkins says 'non-random ns'  ,

>> what does he mean with non-random?- Hide quoted text -


    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -
    >

> Dawkins is attempting to explain organized complexity.

Dawkins, as well as anyone else, already knows that organized complexity
can be produced by natural processes.

> He means NS has
> the ability to produce order.

Natural selection does have that ability.  Order is often produced by
natural processes.


> If NS did not have this ability, then he
> admits that life as we know it would not exist, the process of
> selection careening off into an endless random walk. Dawkins is not,
> of course, suggesting guidance by invisible Intelligence, he is a
> declared Atheist.

Dawkins of course declares himself an atheist.  "Invisible intelligence"
has never been observed to produce order, or anything else, for that
matter.   All "intelligence" that is known to exist, must somehow use a
natural occurring mechanism to produce order.


>
> Don't listen to Howard, Stephan:

Why not, Ray? he's more coherent than you are.

    >
    > "A *result* that differs from the mathematical expectation of blind
    > random chance.  It is the result which is non-random.  It is non-
    > random regardless of whether the difference from blind random chance
    > is due to a person, an invisible god, or a natural environmental
    > condition that biases the results.  Did you seriously not know

> this?" (Howard Hershey).


    >
    > Atheists would not support NS if NS supported the existence of
    > invisible God.


Whatever atheists support, or don't support is irrelevant.   Natural
selection neither supports the existence of God, or denies the existence
of God.    The fact is that natural selection exists, and it produces
adaptive change in populations over generations.


DJT

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/27/11 10:00 PM 	

    On Apr 28, 12:39 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    > On Apr 27, 6:19 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 27, 6:41 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >

show me any facet of any thing we do say or think that does not assume
arithmetic. base arithmetic is the foundation for anything and
everything if the very base has to be assumed then everything else
rests on assumption


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/27/11 10:22 PM 	

godel converted a verbal paradox into a number construction to show
that no matter how clever one might formulate it such as calvin
predestination, crocodile paradox, etc that which you will have to
assume overides it.  thus God said if we ask Jesus to save us, he
will, inspite of calvin, with godel we have to assume something any
attempt at pure induction alone is doomed


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/28/11 2:02 AM 	

"My eyes are brown"

     > base arithmetic is the foundation for anything and
    > everything if the very base has to be assumed then everything else
    > rests on assumption
    >

Wonder who people coped before Peano then - we are not talking about
mere math here, but a very specific, axiomatic way of doing it

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/28/11 2:06 AM 	

Nonsense. Goedel shows that we can formulate a certain type of true,
self-reflexive sentence within sufficiently strong formal theories that
is unprovable within the means of that theory.
That is all. Its implications to non-formal theories is minimal at best,
though peopel with little mathematical knowledge often tried to apply it
out of context.

An excellent demolishen job for this abuse is here;
  Torkel Franzén, 2005. Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use
and Abuse. A.K. Peters.

      thus God said if we ask Jesus to save us, he
    > will, inspite of calvin, with godel we have to assume something any
    > attempt at pure induction alone is doomed
    >
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/28/11 4:48 AM 	

Well in any case I  made the argument that falsifiability itself is
but a subset of unfalsifiability on wikipedia tautology article. The
Epicureans there allowed it to remain for a month but then objected to
the assertion that F=ma isn't a tautology. See the discussion section
at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tautology_(rhetoric)#physics_equations_aren.27t_tautologies

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	4/28/11 7:15 AM 	
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

    > On 28/04/2011 06:22, backspace wrote:

...


    > > godel converted a verbal paradox into a number construction to show
    > > that no matter how clever one might formulate it such as calvin
    > > predestination, crocodile paradox, etc that which you will have to
    > > assume overides it.
    >
    > Nonsense. Goedel shows that we can formulate a certain type of true,
    > self-reflexive sentence within sufficiently strong formal theories that
    > is unprovable within the means of that theory.
    > That is all. Its implications to non-formal theories is minimal at best,
    > though peopel with little mathematical knowledge often tried to apply it
    > out of context.
    >
    > An excellent demolishen job for this abuse is here;
    >   Torkel Franzén, 2005. Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use
    > and Abuse. A.K. Peters.

At one point in the 80s a lecturer remarked to me that every second
philosophy papers was titled "The Gödel Theorem and..." which was
completed with everything from ethics to the philosophy of surfing.

Clearly backspace is trying to catch up. Next, he will discover
postmodernism and semiotics.


    >
    >
    >
    >   thus God said if we ask Jesus to save us, he
    > > will, inspite of calvin, with godel we have to assume something any
    > > attempt at pure induction alone is doomed
    > >
    > >


-- 
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/28/11 7:49 AM 	

    On Apr 27, 11:50 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
    > On 4/25/11 2:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

> > On Apr 21, 11:55 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:

    > >> Mix black and white marbles in a container, then perform a probability
    > >> sample by selecting any marble(without looking) at random from the
    > >> container. If the marble is white, place it in a row, until all the
    > >> white marbles are in the row.
    >
    > >> To an observer seeing only these XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.....XXXXXXX(white)

> >> marbles he would view the process as non-random.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusionusednon-random in


    > >> the same sense.
    >
    > >> natural selection to John Burroughs back in 1921 was a blind random,
    > >> chance concept as in random ns. When Dawkins says 'non-random ns'  ,
    > >> what does he mean with non-random?- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > >> - Show quoted text -
    >
    > > Dawkins is attempting to explain organized complexity.
    >
    > Dawkins, as well as anyone else, already knows that organized complexity
    > can be produced by natural processes.
    >
    > > He means NS has
    > > the ability to produce order.
    >
    > Natural selection does have that ability.  Order is often produced by
    > natural processes.
    >
    > > If NS did not have this ability, then he
    > > admits that life as we know it would not exist, the process of
    > > selection careening off into an endless random walk. Dawkins is not,
    > > of course, suggesting guidance by invisible Intelligence, he is a
    > > declared Atheist.
    >
    > Dawkins of course declares himself an atheist.  "Invisible intelligence"
    > has never been observed to produce order, or anything else, for that
    > matter.   All "intelligence" that is known to exist, must somehow use a
    > natural occurring mechanism to produce order.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Don't listen to Howard, Stephan:
    >
    > Why not, Ray? he's more coherent than you are.

Is that what they call "Damning with faint praise"?

    > > "A *result* that differs from the mathematical expectation of blind
    > > random chance.  It is the result which is non-random.  It is non-
    > > random regardless of whether the difference from blind random chance
    > > is due to a person, an invisible god, or a natural environmental
    > > condition that biases the results.  Did you seriously not know
    > > this?" (Howard Hershey).
    >
    > > Atheists would not support NS if NS supported the existence of
    > > invisible God.
    >
    > Whatever atheists support, or don't support is irrelevant.   Natural
    > selection neither supports the existence of God, or denies the existence
    > of God.    The fact is that natural selection exists, and it produces
    > adaptive change in populations over generations.
    >
    > DJT


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/28/11 9:31 AM 	
On Apr 28, 4:48 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


    > On Apr 28, 11:06 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 28/04/2011 06:22, backspace wrote:
    >

    > > > On Apr 28, 12:39 am, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>  wrote:
    > > >> On Apr 27, 6:19 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >
    > > >>> On Apr 27, 6:41 pm, Kermit<unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >

> > >>>> On Apr 24, 10:14 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:

    > > > godel converted a verbal paradox into a number construction to show
    > > > that no matter how clever one might formulate it such as calvin
    > > > predestination, crocodile paradox, etc that which you will have to
    > > > assume overides it.
    >
    > > Nonsense. Goedel shows that we can formulate a certain type of true,
    > > self-reflexive sentence within sufficiently strong formal theories that
    > > is unprovable within the means of that theory.
    > > That is all. Its implications to non-formal theories is minimal at best,
    > > though peopel with little mathematical knowledge often tried to apply it
    > > out of context.
    >
    > > An excellent demolishen job for this abuse is here;
    > >   Torkel Franzén, 2005. Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use
    > > and Abuse. A.K. Peters.
    >

    > >   thus God said if we ask Jesus to save us, he
    >
    > > > will, inspite of calvin, with godel we have to assume something any
    > > > attempt at pure induction alone is doomed
    >

    > Well in any case I  made the argument that falsifiability itself is
    > but a subset of unfalsifiability on wikipedia tautology article. The
    > Epicureans there allowed it to remain for a month but then objected to
    > the assertion that F=ma isn't a tautology. See the discussion section
    > at:
    >

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tautology_(rhetoric)#physics_equati...- Hide quoted text -


    >
    > - Show quoted text -

You're a fraud.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/29/11 12:07 AM 	
On Apr 28, 6:31 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're a fraud.

That would be Benny Hinn, Olsteen , Joyce Myers  and might even
include the local pastor. They are after money, money and lots of
money and are thus not telling people what Xtianity involves.

It is impossible for Xtians to do biology courses because of the words
selection, fitness etc., they  which have nothing to do with providing
a cause-effect relationship description of the biological machines, no
more than saying the F-22 Raptor has more 'fitness' than a piper cub.

You will note the meaningless 'selection' in the paragraph from
sci.bio.biology below, as Xtians we can't use meaningless words. The
actual reason for some disease would be a gene in some chromosome ,
fitness and selection is like adding roger and rabbit , it wrecks
genes as an information theoretic concept.

Fitness, selection are the coda to force the Lucretius world view into
science, for the sole purpose of displacing the Xtian world view. It
has ruined science, but has been very effective in countering YEC,
because Dembski, Stephen Myers , Ken Ham. www.irc.org etc.  are
debating the issues in terms of how the Epicureans force them to.

My bog standard reply to any description of information theoretic
phenomena is what naturaled and who did the selecting. Since the
Epicureans have forbidden that question, they only allow Dembski to
amuse the children within the terms they dictate, if you don't speak
by their rules, you don't get to speak at all.

---------
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/a31c2343e727060e#
I'd like to have a little discussion regarding natural selection and
complex disease. When it comes to autoimmune disease, positive
selection of an over-reactive immune is increasingly more and more
likely to be to blame. The environmental triggers are viral epidemics
in the neolithic era. The HLA region in chromosome 6 is awash with
incredibly strong with positive selection signals. What are the
implications if it turns out that autoimmune diseases exist almost
exclusively as a result of viral epidemics?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/29/11 2:28 AM 	

I'm not sure the sentence parses Do youmean tha te set of falsifiable
sentences is a subset of unfalsifiable sentences?

     The
    > Epicureans there allowed it to remain for a month but then objected to
    > the assertion that F=ma isn't a tautology. See the discussion section
    > at:
    >

No they don't, at least not at the discussion you linked to. In fact,
they put it in bold that they don't object against that claim. What
they object against are unsourced assertions written in bad English,
which belong on personal blogs but on encyclopaedia entries

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tautology_(rhetoric)#physics_equati...


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/29/11 3:15 AM 	

    (2011/04/29 16:07), backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 28, 6:31 pm, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >> You're a fraud.
    >
    > That would be Benny Hinn, Olsteen , Joyce Myers  and might even
    > include the local pastor. They are after money, money and lots of
    > money and are thus not telling people what Xtianity involves.
    >
    > It is impossible for Xtians to do biology courses because of the words
    > selection, fitness etc., they  which have nothing to do with providing
    > a cause-effect relationship description of the biological machines, no
    > more than saying the F-22 Raptor has more 'fitness' than a piper cub.
    >
    > You will note the meaningless 'selection' in the paragraph from
    > sci.bio.biology below, as Xtians we can't use meaningless words.

Oh that's interesting, I had somehow gotten the impression you were a
Christian. So, are you a Muslim or something ?

    > The
    > actual reason for some disease would be a gene in some chromosome ,
    > fitness and selection is like adding roger and rabbit , it wrecks
    > genes as an information theoretic concept.
    >
    > Fitness, selection are the coda to force the Lucretius world view into
    > science, for the sole purpose of displacing the Xtian world view. It
    > has ruined science, but has been very effective in countering YEC,
    > because Dembski, Stephen Myers , Ken Ham. www.irc.org etc.  are
    > debating the issues in terms of how the Epicureans force them to.
    >
    > My bog standard reply to any description of information theoretic
    > phenomena is what naturaled and who did the selecting.  Since the
    > Epicureans have forbidden that question

I don't know who the Epicureans are here or why they would forbid this
question. I can see why most people would dismiss it, because it's a
very stupid question, but forbid ? Heavens forfend. As for the answer to
that stupid question :
- What naturaled ? --> nothing. That's not what "natural" means in that
context.
- Who did the selecting ? --> Nature. *That's* what "natural" means in
that context.

And your strange ideas that selection or non-randomness imply
intelligent, conscious choice are still completely false.

    >, they only allow Dembski to
    > amuse the children within the terms they dictate, if you don't speak
    > by their rules, you don't get to speak at all.
    >
    > ---------
    > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/a31c2343e727060e#
    > I'd like to have a little discussion regarding natural selection and
    > complex disease. When it comes to autoimmune disease, positive
    > selection of an over-reactive immune is increasingly more and more
    > likely to be to blame. The environmental triggers are viral epidemics
    > in the neolithic era. The HLA region in chromosome 6 is awash with
    > incredibly strong with positive selection signals. What are the
    > implications if it turns out that autoimmune diseases exist almost
    > exclusively as a result of viral epidemics?

What's meaningless about "selection" in that paragraph ? "positive
selection of an over-reactive immune [system]" obviously refers to the
idea that organisms with an over-reactive immune system produce more
descendants than organisms with under-reactive immune systems and that
these over-reactive immune systems cause autoimmune disease. This is not
at all a trivial statement and the poster proceeds to hypothesise that
the reason organisms with over-active immune systems produced more
descendants than organisms with under-reactive immune systems is that
there were viral epidemics in the neolithic era.

The next sentence obviously wasn't proof-read for grammar but it seems
to say that one can tell from looking at the HLA region of chromosome 6
that the genes there got there because they actively favored the
reproduction rate of the bearers, i.e. "were selected for", as opposed
to having gotten there through random drift.

>
>
>

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Nick Keighley 	4/29/11 6:34 AM 	
On Apr 14, 9:04 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:05 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > (2011/04/11 16:32), backspace wrote:
> > > > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott"<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:


    > > > >> backspace wrote:
    > > > >>> Does random mean non-directed
    >

> > > >> In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose. So I
> > > >> would say yes.
>
> > > >> There are other meanings in other contexts though. Which context did you
> > > >> have in mind?
>
> > > >> Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
> > > >> unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
> > > >> a tautology?
>
> > > >> David
>
> > > > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?
>
> > > One could choose to define the words that way. Or not. As everyone else
> > > is telling you, what's the context ? "random" and "directed" tend to
> > > have very different meanings depending on the context.
>
> > what is the dif between random natural selection and non-random ns ?
>
> The first is not normally a concept from evolutionary biology, the
> second one is. An example for random natural selection (if we accept
> that humans are part of nature too) would be a situation where someone
> throws a dice to decide which animals are to be shot.  Evolution as
> commonly understood would struggle under these conditions.

Teela Brown


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Nick Keighley 	4/29/11 6:33 AM 	

    On Apr 11, 8:32 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 8:08 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > > backspace wrote:
    > > > Does random mean non-directed
    >
    > > In general usage random means lacking direction, pattern or purpose.  So I
    > > would say yes.
    >
    > > There are other meanings in other contexts though.  Which context did you
    > > have in mind?
    >
    > > Another question: how long will it be before you mutate this (apparently)
    > > unrelated thread to asserting in some way that 'survival of the fittest' is
    > > a tautology?
    >
    > > David
    >
    > Ok, now does non-random mean directed?

depends what you mean by "directed". A thrown ball follows a known
(ie.non-random) path. It's directed by gravity (and other forces). But
there's no god, necessary, to do the directing

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/29/11 6:48 AM 	

That assumes probability functions can be manipulated.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	4/29/11 7:20 AM 	

    On Apr 29, 3:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 28, 6:31 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > You're a fraud.
    >
    > That would be Benny Hinn, Olsteen , Joyce Myers  and might even
    > include the local pastor. They are after money, money and lots of
    > money and are thus not telling people what Xtianity involves.
    >
    > It is impossible for Xtians to do biology courses because of the words
    > selection, fitness etc., they  which have nothing to do with providing
    > a cause-effect relationship description of the biological machines, no
    > more than saying the F-22 Raptor has more 'fitness' than a piper cub.

It certainly would not be absurd to point out that the F-22 Raptor was
designed (by humans, since it is known to be an object of human
manufacture, which makes it *different from* life forms which can be
*modified* by humans using selection, hence "artificial selection")
for a significantly different environment than the Piper Cub.  In
fact, the environment for which the F-22 Raptor was designed was so
specialized and rare, that the design was cost-ineffective and has
been rendered extinct in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal 2010.  The Piper Cub, being designed (also by humans) for an
environment that is more extensive and at a much more favorable cost/
benefit ratio for that environment, still putt-putts on in its broader
ecological niche in much greater numbers than ever was the case for
the F-22 Raptor.


    >
    > You will note the meaningless 'selection' in the paragraph from

> sci.bio.biology below, as Xtians we can't use meaningless words. The


    > actual reason for some disease would be a gene in some chromosome ,
    > fitness and selection is like adding roger and rabbit , it wrecks
    > genes as an information theoretic concept.
    >
    > Fitness, selection are the coda to force the Lucretius world view into
    > science, for the sole purpose of displacing the Xtian world view. It
    > has ruined science, but has been very effective in countering YEC,

> because Dembski, Stephen Myers , Ken Ham.www.irc.orgetc.  are


    > debating the issues in terms of how the Epicureans force them to.
    >
    > My bog standard reply to any description of information theoretic
    > phenomena is what naturaled and who did the selecting. Since the

> Epicureans have forbidden that question, they only allow Dembski to


    > amuse the children within the terms they dictate, if you don't speak
    > by their rules, you don't get to speak at all.
    >

> ---------http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/a3...


    > I'd like to have a little discussion regarding natural selection and
    > complex disease. When it comes to autoimmune disease, positive
    > selection of an over-reactive immune is increasingly more and more
    > likely to be to blame. The environmental triggers are viral epidemics
    > in the neolithic era. The HLA region in chromosome 6 is awash with
    > incredibly strong with positive selection signals. What are the
    > implications if it turns out that autoimmune diseases exist almost
    > exclusively as a result of viral epidemics?


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/29/11 8:07 AM 	

    On Apr 29, 12:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 28, 6:31 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > You're a fraud.
    >
    > That would be Benny Hinn, Olsteen , Joyce Myers  and might even
    > include the local pastor. They are after money, money and lots of
    > money and are thus not telling people what Xtianity involves.

Their being frauds doesn't preclude you from being one also.  You're
argument is bogus and you know it.  Otherwise you would have answered
my question and not backed meekly out the door.

    > It is impossible for Xtians to do biology courses because of the words
    > selection, fitness etc.,

And I asked you to supply new words for evolution that met your
criteria for meaningfulness, and you mumbled something under your
breath and ran off to hide in the bushes.


<snip>

    > My bog standard reply to any description of information theoretic
    > phenomena is what naturaled and who did the selecting.

Yes it is.  You should buy yourself a clue and get over this.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/29/11 10:14 AM 	

    On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > The next sentence obviously wasn't proof-read for grammar but it seems
    > to say that one can tell from looking at the HLA region of chromosome 6
    > that the genes there got there because they actively favored the
    > reproduction rate of the bearers, i.e. "were selected for", as opposed
    > to having gotten there through random drift.

Other than noting they were favored, how did you measure their
selectability ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/29/11 10:23 AM 	

    On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 12:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 28, 6:31 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > You're a fraud.
    >
    > > That would be Benny Hinn, Olsteen , Joyce Myers  and might even
    > > include the local pastor. They are after money, money and lots of
    > > money and are thus not telling people what Xtianity involves.
    >
    > Their being frauds doesn't preclude you from being one also.  You're
    > argument is bogus and you know it.  Otherwise you would have answered
    > my question and not backed meekly out the door.

Your previous question begged the question. I can't answer a question
that goes as follows:
Explain how the mechanism of square circles(natural selection) leads
to adaptive change?

Decisions(selections) aren't natural , they may be contemplated or
preferential and a circle isn't square by definition.  Furthermore
nothing, not a rock or human or animal is adapted to its environment
or condition of existence because you are already described by your
attributes. Adaptation confuses cause with effect.

Where the Epicureans have won the debate with Ken Ham, Dembski and
irc.org is that they have got them in the outrageous position of
'explaining' how a square circle(natural selection) leads to genetic
modification or whatever you want modified.

We must also stop calling Epicureans Evolutionists, their preferred
term.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/29/11 10:23 AM 	
Do you understand what "noting they were favored" consists of, before
dismissing it ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/29/11 10:34 AM 	

    (2011/04/30 2:23), backspace wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >> On Apr 29, 12:07 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 28, 6:31 pm, Inez<savagemouse...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
    >>
    >>>> You're a fraud.
    >>
    >>> That would be Benny Hinn, Olsteen , Joyce Myers  and might even
    >>> include the local pastor. They are after money, money and lots of
    >>> money and are thus not telling people what Xtianity involves.
    >>
    >> Their being frauds doesn't preclude you from being one also.  You're
    >> argument is bogus and you know it.  Otherwise you would have answered
    >> my question and not backed meekly out the door.
    >
    > Your previous question begged the question. I can't answer a question
    > that goes as follows:
    > Explain how the mechanism of square circles(natural selection) leads
    > to adaptive change?
    >
    > Decisions(selections) aren't natural , they may be contemplated or
    > preferential and a circle isn't square by definition.

Selections and Decisions aren't the same thing, by definition. And they
aren't non-natural by definition either. Making up your own definitions
is pretty pointless.

    >  Furthermore
    > nothing, not a rock or human or animal is adapted to its environment
    > or condition of existence because you are already described by your
    > attributes.

That is either meaningless, or semantics, likely both.

    > Adaptation confuses cause with effect.
    >
    > Where the Epicureans have won the debate with Ken Ham, Dembski and
    > irc.org is that they have got them in the outrageous position of
    > 'explaining' how a square circle(natural selection) leads to genetic
    > modification or whatever you want modified.

Actually natural selection is more like "green circle", and you insist
it's an oxymoron because you've made up your own definition of circle to
mean "non-green".

But the thing is, as Inez points out, even if your made-up definitions
are RIGHT - that just means we need a different name for "natural
selection". It has no implication on the phenomenon itself, or whether
it happens or not. You're not only nitpicking on semantics, you've
somehow mistaken the semantics for the real thing. This is why Inez
asked you to formulate the theory in your own words - to separate the
semantics issue from the substantive issue.


    >
    > We must also stop calling Epicureans Evolutionists, their preferred
    > term.
    >

You do realize Epicure and his followers had no inkling about the theory
of evolution as Darwin formulated it, right ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Inez 	4/29/11 11:52 AM 	

    On Apr 29, 10:23 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 5:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 29, 12:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On Apr 28, 6:31 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > You're a fraud.
    >
    > > > That would be Benny Hinn, Olsteen , Joyce Myers  and might even
    > > > include the local pastor. They are after money, money and lots of
    > > > money and are thus not telling people what Xtianity involves.
    >
    > > Their being frauds doesn't preclude you from being one also.  You're
    > > argument is bogus and you know it.  Otherwise you would have answered
    > > my question and not backed meekly out the door.
    >
    > Your previous question begged the question. I can't answer a question
    > that goes as follows:
    > Explain how the mechanism of square circles(natural selection) leads
    > to adaptive change?
    >
    > Decisions(selections) aren't natural , they may be contemplated or
    > preferential and a circle isn't square by definition.

Yes yes, I get that you like to use incorrect synonyms to general
words to pretend to be confused.  Let's avoid that by taking a
concrete if fictional example.

A wolf is born with a mutation that causes him to grow a particularly
dense winter coat.  This allows him to spend less energy shivering
around in the winter, and so he has to eat less, and thus his chances
of starvation are lower.  His puppies inheret this new gene, and more
of them survive than the average for his species.  Eventually the
gene, being advantageous, spreads through the population.

Where is the square circle here?  Are you saying that DNA must always
copy with no errors unless an intelligent agency forces there to be
one?  Why should that be true?

    > Furthermore
    > nothing, not a rock or human or animal is adapted to its environment
    > or condition of existence because you are already described by your

> attributes. Adaptation confuses cause with effect.
>
That probably made sense to other crazy people.

    > Where the Epicureans have won the debate with Ken Ham, Dembski and
    > irc.org is that they have got them in the outrageous position of
    > 'explaining' how a square circle(natural selection) leads to genetic
    > modification or whatever you want modified.
    >

    > We must also stop calling Epicureans Evolutionists, their preferred
    > term.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/29/11 12:24 PM 	
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:14:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

    >On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> The next sentence obviously wasn't proof-read for grammar but it seems
    >> to say that one can tell from looking at the HLA region of chromosome 6
    >> that the genes there got there because they actively favored the
    >> reproduction rate of the bearers, i.e. "were selected for", as opposed
    >> to having gotten there through random drift.
    >
    >Other than noting they were favored, how did you measure their
    >selectability ?

Other than noting you had water dripping off your chin, how
did you measure whether you were wet?
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/29/11 1:50 PM 	

    On Apr 29, 6:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > The next sentence obviously wasn't proof-read for grammar but it seems
    > > to say that one can tell from looking at the HLA region of chromosome 6
    > > that the genes there got there because they actively favored the
    > > reproduction rate of the bearers, i.e. "were selected for", as opposed
    > > to having gotten there through random drift.
    >
    > Other than noting they were favored, how did you measure their
    > selectability ?

exactly like last time you asked. By counting the offspring and
comparing the numbers

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/29/11 2:02 PM 	
I doubt they did that for some specific HLA region of a human
chromosome. I expect they detect positive selection in such cases by
looking at the distribution of the genes in the population and seeing if
they're highly conserved, or follow patterns that match environmental
constraints or something.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/30/11 2:35 AM 	

In other words non-random has no synonym?


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/30/11 2:52 AM 	

Whaaaaaat ?
You do realize most synonyms you can find in a thesaurus aren't exact
matches, right ? I can't think of an exact synonym of non-random off the
top of my head, but let me google it.
:google:
And google doesn't find anything either which isn't surprising as
non-random is a technical term, not the kind of colloquial word that has
lots of synonyms.

Finally, what's with the "in other words" ? Neither my post nor Burkhard
said anything about the synonyms of non-random.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	4/30/11 4:25 AM 	

    On Apr 30, 11:52 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > (2011/04/30 18:35), backspace wrote:
    > > On Apr 29, 11:02 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    > >> (2011/04/30 5:50), Burkhard wrote:
    > >>> On Apr 29, 6:14 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>    wrote:
    > >>>> On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
    >
    > >>>>> The next sentence obviously wasn't proof-read for grammar but it seems
    > >>>>> to say that one can tell from looking at the HLA region of chromosome 6
    > >>>>> that the genes there got there because they actively favored the
    > >>>>> reproduction rate of the bearers, i.e. "were selected for", as opposed
    > >>>>> to having gotten there through random drift.
    >
    > >>>> Other than noting they were favored, how did you measure their
    > >>>> selectability ?
    >
    > >>> exactly like last time you asked. By counting the offspring and
    > >>> comparing the numbers
    >
    > >> I doubt they did that for some specific HLA region of a human
    > >> chromosome. I expect they detect positive selection in such cases by
    > >> looking at the distribution of the genes in the population and seeing if
    > >> they're highly conserved, or follow patterns that match environmental
    > >> constraints or something.
    >
    > > In other words non-random has no synonym?
    >
    > Whaaaaaat ?
    > You do realize most synonyms you can find in a thesaurus aren't exact
    > matches, right ? I can't think of an exact synonym of non-random off the

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/random   reports no
matches for either  nonrandom , non random or non-random

http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/nonrandom/  give purposive as a
synonym.

Thus in purposive non-random natural selection, who had a purpose?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	4/30/11 4:50 AM 	

    On Apr 30, 10:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 11:02 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > (2011/04/30 5:50), Burkhard wrote:
    > > > On Apr 29, 6:14 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    > > >> On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    >
    > > >>> The next sentence obviously wasn't proof-read for grammar but it seems
    > > >>> to say that one can tell from looking at the HLA region of chromosome 6
    > > >>> that the genes there got there because they actively favored the
    > > >>> reproduction rate of the bearers, i.e. "were selected for", as opposed
    > > >>> to having gotten there through random drift.
    >
    > > >> Other than noting they were favored, how did you measure their
    > > >> selectability ?
    >
    > > > exactly like last time you asked. By counting the offspring and
    > > > comparing the numbers
    >
    > > I doubt they did that for some specific HLA region of a human
    > > chromosome. I expect they detect positive selection in such cases by
    > > looking at the distribution of the genes in the population and seeing if
    > > they're highly conserved, or follow patterns that match environmental
    > > constraints or something.
    >
    > In other words non-random has no synonym?

To the extend that there is such thing as a synonym, "rule governed"
works in most contexts, as is "deterministic"

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	4/30/11 6:19 AM 	

Like I said... Neither does thesaurus.com, synonyms.net,
websters-dictionary-online.com gives a crazy list of words including
"tandom" and "randomized" (wtf?)... The best is still mijnwoordenboek.nl
which gives "nonrandom" (no kidding), "orderly", "purposive" and
"systematic" which all reflect different contexts the word "nonrandom"
can be used in but none of them are exact synonyms (the fact that they
are not synonyms of each other is kind of a hint). And it's a Dutch
site, who we all know are the highest authorities on the English language.

    >
    > http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/nonrandom/  give purposive as a
    > synonym.

Which is completely ridiculous and a good example of "you do realize
most synonyms you can find in a thesaurus aren't exact matches, right?".
The fact that this is the practically the only synonym that comes up out
of many, many sites and it's not even the most common word that can
express that meaning (what's wrong with "purposeful", or even your
beloved "directed" ? In fact, when you look up "purposive" on that site
it doesn't even make sense : it gives two different meanings, which for
the synonym section give two different synonyms : "nonrandom" and
"purposeful", as if the two were different, and then in the definition
section it gives two senses again but *describes the two senses in the
exact same way*. Now there's a trustworthy source...) kind of shows that
this isn't a very good source.


    >
    > Thus in purposive non-random natural selection, who had a purpose?
    >

Right, so out of a ton of sites that say one thing, you isolate the one
site that says another without checking to see if that site gives
high-quality information in general and you just run with it. I usually
speak against those who claim everything on the internet is
untrustworthy, but you obviously lack the research skills to actually
use the internet effectively. Oh, and it completely ignores the bit
where MOST SYNONYMS AREN'T EXACT. The way to understand a word's meaning
is to look at the definition, not its synonyms.

Moreover, you still haven't said what the synonyms of non-random have to
do with what Burkhard and I were talking about. Also, you are still
arguing semantics as if the semantics affected the substantive issue at
all. Do you understand the difference between semantics and substantive
issues ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	4/30/11 10:30 AM 	
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT), the following


    appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 29, 11:02 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >> (2011/04/30 5:50), Burkhard wrote:
    >> > On Apr 29, 6:14 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >> >> On Apr 29, 12:15 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    >>
    >> >>> The next sentence obviously wasn't proof-read for grammar but it seems
    >> >>> to say that one can tell from looking at the HLA region of chromosome 6
    >> >>> that the genes there got there because they actively favored the
    >> >>> reproduction rate of the bearers, i.e. "were selected for", as opposed
    >> >>> to having gotten there through random drift.
    >>
    >> >> Other than noting they were favored, how did you measure their
    >> >> selectability ?
    >>
    >> > exactly like last time you asked. By counting the offspring and
    >> > comparing the numbers
    >>
    >> I doubt they did that for some specific HLA region of a human
    >> chromosome. I expect they detect positive selection in such cases by
    >> looking at the distribution of the genes in the population and seeing if
    >> they're highly conserved, or follow patterns that match environmental
    >> constraints or something.
    >
    >In other words non-random has no synonym?

Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
reason you feel it must have one? Does "non-scaly" have a
consistent synonym? How about "non-winged"?
"Non-electronic"?

I'd say that most "non-" words have no consistent synonym.


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/1/11 5:28 AM 	
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=tflDVdDFM-4C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=gordon+campbell+darwinism&source=bl&ots=sZFm0bu1q8&sig=TwanfRo0t5cnWjkBPpuWo41PwZ4&hl=en&ei=RBunTKOLO4GEOsOV-eMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

De Rerum natura:
> > p107
> ''...Aside from this difference the two systems are significantly
> similar: life is formed randomly in a great burst of mutations in the
> beginning of the world, and these mutations are then 'selected' by
> extinction, to produce species well adapted to their
> environment. As I have argued above(see introduction 837ff.),
> Lucretius is not an evolutionist here, since he insists on...''
> p.108 to 118 are in the book only ,not onl


Selected by extinction can also use dissimilar words such as
preserved or accumulated by extinction. What Lucretius wrote is
unfalsifiable, because no matter what random collision of particle
actually finally was preserved,selected or accumulated we would be
told the exact same story.

The term Selection in modern science is how the Lucretius origins myth
gets perpetuated to displace the YEC view.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/1/11 5:46 AM 	

    (2011/05/01 21:28), backspace wrote:
    > http://books.google.co.za/books?id=tflDVdDFM-4C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=gordon+campbell+darwinism&source=bl&ots=sZFm0bu1q8&sig=TwanfRo0t5cnWjkBPpuWo41PwZ4&hl=en&ei=RBunTKOLO4GEOsOV-eMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
    >
    > De Rerum natura:
    >>> p107
    >> ''...Aside from this difference the two systems are significantly
    >> similar: life is formed randomly in a great burst of mutations in the
    >> beginning of the world, and these mutations are then 'selected' by
    >> extinction, to produce species well adapted to their
    >> environment. As I have argued above(see introduction 837ff.),
    >> Lucretius is not an evolutionist here, since he insists on...''
    >> p.108 to 118 are in the book only ,not onl
    >
    >
    > Selected by extinction can also use dissimilar words such as
    > preserved or accumulated by extinction.

What is that supposed to mean ? Are you arguing that preserved or
accumulated are defensible synonyms of "selected" in that context ? In
which case why are they "dissimilar" ? And if they aren't synonyms in
this context, why do you say they can be used ?

Look, word use aside do you understand what the process biologists
commonly call "natural selection" *is* ? Please explain this process in
your own words. If you don't even know what "natural selection" refers
to how can you say those are the wrong words to use ? And how can you
say the process doesn't happen ?

    > What Lucretius wrote is
    > unfalsifiable, because no matter what random collision of particle
    > actually finally was preserved,selected or accumulated we would be
    > told the exact same story.

That's funny that you think what Lucretius wrote is unfalsifiable, what
with it being *false* and all. Here's how to falsify it : demonstrate
that mutations still occur today. Oh, they do. Demonstrate they affect
current evolution. I think things like HIV or flu viruses,
antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the Lenski experiments demonstrate
that fine.
There : Lucretius falsified. (if Lucretius said that stuff about all
mutations arising at the beginning of the world, that is. The quote
doesn't make that clear)


    >
    > The term Selection in modern science is how the Lucretius origins myth
    > gets perpetuated to displace the YEC view.
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/1/11 7:39 AM 	

    On May 1, 2:46 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > (2011/05/01 21:28), backspace wrote:

> >http://books.google.co.za/books?id=tflDVdDFM-4C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=gor...


    >
    > > De Rerum natura:
    > >>> p107
    > >> ''...Aside from this difference the two systems are significantly
    > >> similar: life is formed randomly in a great burst of mutations in the
    > >> beginning of the world, and these mutations are then 'selected' by
    > >> extinction, to produce species well adapted to their
    > >> environment. As I have argued above(see introduction 837ff.),
    > >> Lucretius is not an evolutionist here, since he insists on...''
    > >> p.108 to 118 are in the book only ,not onl
    >
    > > Selected by extinction can also use dissimilar words such as
    > > preserved or accumulated by extinction.
    >
    > What is that supposed to mean ? Are you arguing that preserved or
    > accumulated are defensible synonyms of "selected" in that context ?

A word only becomes a synonym as codified in a dictionary, meaning
that in 99% of cases either word will be understood
by all to refer to same concept, without any context. Such  words are
similar(synonym). But any object can be used to represent any
concept , thus dissimilar(not the same)  words when used in a sentence
can also refer to the same concept, but not in their stand alone form.
Dr. Wilkins on his blog at  evolvingthoughts.net posted about the
usage of dictionaries. Iron ore as an object from 1859, remains the
same object as does the term 'selection'. In no context preservation,
selection and accumulation aren't synonyms but in the context Darwin
used 'selection', he meant natural preservation.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
'...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
discrediting the theory....'

Referring one to hundreds of possible papers to elucidate the concept
of natural preservation(Darwin preferred preservation over selection)
as explaining some sort of general universal operator isn't a bold
falsifiable enterprise. Popper insisted that we must make bold
falsifiable predictions in order to expose our theories to possible
refutation.

Rather refer us to a single paper that explains how nothing turned
into something via a mechanism we can't define , that would be a bold
falsifiable paper. Of course such a paper will never exist , we will
forever be told about the millions of journal papers we must consult.

With bold theories such as Kepler's planetary laws we can refer to the
actual papers.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/1/11 7:56 AM 	

    On May 1, 4:39 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > In no context preservation,
    > selection and accumulation aren't synonyms but in the context Darwin
    > used 'selection', he meant natural preservation.

Let me try again:

In a stand-alone dictionary context preservation,  selection and


    accumulation aren't synonyms but in the context Darwin

used 'selection' as a dissimilar word to mean natural preservation
after the great  Malthusian battle for survival. Malthus in turn
lifted the the idea from Lucretius. We can have the same idea and
formulate it differently.

Definition of synonym:
Synonyms are single words that refer to the same concept , without a
sentence.

selection, decision are synonyms.

    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    ''...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
    science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
    creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    discrediting the theory....'

Note how natural selection is the 'supporting logical framework', but
of course nothing got naturaled and nobody made decisions. The real
frame-work NS is a ruse for are the world view and mythologies of
Lucretius, Empedocles and the ancient Babylonian creation myths.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/1/11 8:21 AM 	

    (2011/05/01 23:39), backspace wrote:
    > On May 1, 2:46 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    >> (2011/05/01 21:28), backspace wrote:
    >>> http://books.google.co.za/books?id=tflDVdDFM-4C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=gor...
    >>
    >>> De Rerum natura:
    >>>>> p107
    >>>> ''...Aside from this difference the two systems are significantly
    >>>> similar: life is formed randomly in a great burst of mutations in the
    >>>> beginning of the world, and these mutations are then 'selected' by
    >>>> extinction, to produce species well adapted to their
    >>>> environment. As I have argued above(see introduction 837ff.),
    >>>> Lucretius is not an evolutionist here, since he insists on...''
    >>>> p.108 to 118 are in the book only ,not onl
    >>
    >>> Selected by extinction can also use dissimilar words such as
    >>> preserved or accumulated by extinction.
    >>
    >> What is that supposed to mean ? Are you arguing that preserved or
    >> accumulated are defensible synonyms of "selected" in that context ?
    >
    > A word only becomes a synonym as codified in a dictionary,

Nope.
It's pretty funny seeing someone try a semantics argument when they
apparently have no idea how language works.

    > meaning
    > that in 99% of cases either word will be understood
    > by all to refer to same concept, without any context.

Nope. Very few synonyms are exact matches, they all vary in nuance at
the very least and any word that has different uses depending on context
will also have different synonyms depending on context. For instance, on
the Synonym.com site you liked, some synonyms of "happy" are "glad",
"willing", "well-chosen", "fortunate". Those four words have different
meanings, and only make sense as synonyms of "happy" in certain contexts.

    > Such  words are
    > similar(synonym). But any object can be used to represent any
    > concept , thus dissimilar(not the same)  words when used in a sentence
    > can also refer to the same concept, but not in their stand alone form.

... isn't that the same thing as saying different words can work as
synonyms in different contexts ? Are you making up your own definitions
again ? (in this case, the definition of "synonym")

    > Dr. Wilkins on his blog at  evolvingthoughts.net posted about the
    > usage of dictionaries. Iron ore as an object from 1859, remains the
    > same object as does the term 'selection'. In no context preservation,
    > selection and accumulation aren't synonyms but in the context Darwin
    > used 'selection', he meant natural preservation.

Why is the use of "preservation" superior to the use of "selection" in
this context ? For one thing, it doesn't carry the implication that
whether something is "preserved" or not depends on its characteristics.
"Selection" does carry that implication. Do you understand why this
implication is important ?

    >
    > http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    > '...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    > ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    > observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    > natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
    > science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
    > creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    > discrediting the theory....'
    >
    > Referring one to hundreds of possible papers to elucidate the concept
    > of natural preservation(Darwin preferred preservation over selection)
    > as explaining some sort of general universal operator isn't a bold
    > falsifiable enterprise. Popper insisted that we must make bold
    > falsifiable predictions in order to expose our theories to possible
    > refutation.

So, please formulate the theory of evolution in your own words and
explain why it isn't falsifiable. If you don't know what the theory
says, and you have given every indication that you don't, you can't tell
whether it's falsifiable or not.


    >
    > Rather refer us to a single paper that explains how nothing turned
    > into something via a mechanism we can't define , that would be a bold
    > falsifiable paper.

Why would that paper be falsifiable ?

    > Of course such a paper will never exist , we will
    > forever be told about the millions of journal papers we must consult.
    >
    > With bold theories such as Kepler's planetary laws we can refer to the
    > actual papers.

Have you read Kepler's original papers ? Have you read the Origin of
Species ?
>
>

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/1/11 8:41 AM 	

    (2011/05/01 23:56), backspace wrote:
    > On May 1, 4:39 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >> In no context preservation,
    >> selection and accumulation aren't synonyms but in the context Darwin
    >> used 'selection', he meant natural preservation.
    >
    > Let me try again:
    >
    > In a stand-alone dictionary context preservation,  selection and
    > accumulation aren't synonyms but in the context Darwin
    > used 'selection' as a dissimilar word to mean natural preservation
    > after the great  Malthusian battle for survival.

Let me try again : why is "natural preservation" better than "natural
selection" at expressing Darwin's idea ?

    > Malthus in turn
    > lifted the the idea from Lucretius. We can have the same idea and
    > formulate it differently.

What is this idea ? Please explain the detailed process that's
summarized in the "natural selection" formulation.

    >
    > Definition of synonym:
    > Synonyms are single words that refer to the same concept , without a
    > sentence.

Ah, so you *are* making your up your own definitions.

>
> selection, decision are synonyms.

Not by your own definition of synonym they aren't. They can be
substituted for each other in certain contexts but not others, and they
don't refer to the same concept.

    >
    > http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    > ''...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    > ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    > observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    > natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
    > science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
    > creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    > discrediting the theory....'
    >
    > Note how natural selection is the 'supporting logical framework', but
    > of course nothing got naturaled and nobody made decisions.

Indeed they didn't. The process that people call "natural selection"
doesn't imply they would. Do you understand what that process is and
what it implies ? If you don't, just ask and we can explain. (again)
(but maybe you'd missed those)

    > The real
    > frame-work NS is a ruse for are the world view and mythologies of
    > Lucretius, Empedocles and the ancient Babylonian creation myths.
    >

No, it isn't. What is the basis for this claim of yours ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	5/1/11 12:31 PM 	

    On May 1, 10:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 1, 2:46 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > (2011/05/01 21:28), backspace wrote:
    > > >http://books.google.co.za/books?id=tflDVdDFM-4C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=gor...
    >
    > > > De Rerum natura:
    > > >>> p107
    > > >> ''...Aside from this difference the two systems are significantly
    > > >> similar: life is formed randomly in a great burst of mutations in the
    > > >> beginning of the world, and these mutations are then 'selected' by
    > > >> extinction, to produce species well adapted to their
    > > >> environment. As I have argued above(see introduction 837ff.),
    > > >> Lucretius is not an evolutionist here, since he insists on...''
    > > >> p.108 to 118 are in the book only ,not onl
    >
    > > > Selected by extinction can also use dissimilar words such as
    > > > preserved or accumulated by extinction.
    >
    > > What is that supposed to mean ? Are you arguing that preserved or
    > > accumulated are defensible synonyms of "selected" in that context ?
    >

> A word only becomes a synonym as codified in a dictionary, meaning


    > that in 99% of cases either word will be understood

> by all to refer to same concept, without any context. Such  words are


    > similar(synonym). But any object can be used to represent any
    > concept , thus dissimilar(not the same)  words when used in a sentence
    > can also refer to the same concept, but not in their stand alone form.

    > Dr. Wilkins on his blog at  evolvingthoughts.net posted about the
    > usage of dictionaries. Iron ore as an object from 1859, remains the

> same object as does the term 'selection'. In no context preservation,


    > selection and accumulation aren't synonyms but in the context Darwin
    > used 'selection', he meant natural preservation.
    >

    > http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    > '...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    > ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    > observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    > natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
    > science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
    > creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    > discrediting the theory....'
    >

    > Referring one to hundreds of possible papers to elucidate the concept
    > of natural preservation(Darwin preferred preservation over selection)
    > as explaining some sort of general universal operator isn't a bold
    > falsifiable enterprise. Popper insisted that we must make bold
    > falsifiable predictions in order to expose our theories to possible
    > refutation.

Are you claiming that natural selection (or natural preservation) is
not, even in principle, falsifiable?  Or are you claiming that it
*hasn't* been falsified?  The fact is that natural selection *is* both
falsifiable and that there are conditions under which it does not
occur (meaning that, in those conditions, natural selection has been
*falsified*).
Conditions that would "falsify" natural selection are conditions in
which there is no significant or detectable mean difference in the
reproductive success of organisms with different phenotypes.  Also in
conditions in which there is no phenotypic variation upon which some
environmental factor can act.  And environmental conditions in which
no organism of either phenotype can survive or, more relevantly,
reproduce.

    >
    > Rather refer us to a single paper that explains how nothing turned
    > into something via a mechanism we can't define , that would be a bold
    > falsifiable paper.

Funny man. Turning nothing (or the spoken word) into something
material is actually a typical creationist claim about how God
'created'.  Biological evolution, OTOH, turns something (a pre-
existing something) into something different.  Biological evolution
never starts with 'nothing'; at minimum, it starts with a self-
replicating system.  Can you show me a paper explaining how God can
turn nothing into something.

    > Of course such a paper will never exist , we will
    > forever be told about the millions of journal papers we must consult.

There are lots of papers showing how a population with one pre-
dominant trait can and have been modified into a population with a
different predominant trait.  But I agree that there are no papers
that present an empirically verifiable God poofing organisms into
existence from nothing.


    >
    > With bold theories such as Kepler's planetary laws we can refer to the
    > actual papers.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/2/11 5:39 AM 	

It's not even in principle a sentence.

    > Or are you claiming that it *hasn't* been falsified?

What hasn't been falsified or isn't falsifiable. To which of the
multiple wikipedia revision are being referred to.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia_natural_selection_Nov.2009_revision

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/2/11 5:18 AM 	

Something doesn't have to be a sentence to be falsifiable.


    >
    >>  Or are you claiming that it *hasn't* been falsified?
    >
    > What hasn't been falsified or isn't falsifiable.

"Hasn't been falsified" and "isn't falsifiable" are different things. Do
you understand the difference between the two ?

    > To which of the
    > multiple wikipedia revision are being referred to.
    >
    > http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia_natural_selection_Nov.2009_revision
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	5/2/11 6:37 AM 	

    On May 2, 8:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 1, 9:31 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 1, 10:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

[snip]


    >
    > > >http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    > > > '...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    > > > ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    > > > observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    > > > natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
    > > > science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
    > > > creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    > > > discrediting the theory....'
    >
    > > > Referring one to hundreds of possible papers to elucidate the concept
    > > > of natural preservation(Darwin preferred preservation over selection)
    > > > as explaining some sort of general universal operator isn't a bold
    > > > falsifiable enterprise. Popper insisted that we must make bold
    > > > falsifiable predictions in order to expose our theories to possible
    > > > refutation.
    >
    > > Are you claiming that natural selection (or natural preservation) is
    > > not, even in principle, falsifiable?
    >
    > It's not even in principle a sentence.
    >

    > > Or are you claiming that it *hasn't* been falsified?
    >

> What hasn't been falsified or isn't falsifiable. To which of the


    > multiple wikipedia revision are being referred to.
    >

> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia_natural_selectio...

Nice unmarked snippage job.  Poor referal job.  Scratchpad is not an
actual wikipedia article.  It is the stuff that, even for wikipedia,
finds its way to its appropriate site -- the trash.  Besides, I have
specifically defined and described when there is natural selection and
when there is not.

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

You haven't replied.

Nor have you replied to the parts you snipped (see below).

************


    > Rather refer us to a single paper that explains how nothing turned
    > into something via a mechanism we can't define , that would be a bold
    > falsifiable paper.


    Funny man. Turning nothing (or the spoken word) into something
    material is actually a typical creationist claim about how God
    'created'.  Biological evolution, OTOH, turns something (a pre-
    existing something) into something different.  Biological evolution
    never starts with 'nothing'; at minimum, it starts with a self-
    replicating system.  Can you show me a paper explaining how God can
    turn nothing into something.
    > Of course such a paper will never exist , we will
    > forever be told about the millions of journal papers we must consult.

    There are lots of papers showing how a population with one pre-
    dominant trait can and have been modified into a population with a
    different predominant trait.  But I agree that there are no papers
    that present an empirically verifiable God poofing organisms into
    existence from nothing.

********

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	5/2/11 10:41 AM 	

    On May 2, 5:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 1, 9:31 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 1, 10:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > >http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    > > > '...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    > > > ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    > > > observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    > > > natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
    > > > science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
    > > > creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    > > > discrediting the theory....'
    >
    > > > Referring one to hundreds of possible papers to elucidate the concept
    > > > of natural preservation(Darwin preferred preservation over selection)
    > > > as explaining some sort of general universal operator isn't a bold
    > > > falsifiable enterprise. Popper insisted that we must make bold
    > > > falsifiable predictions in order to expose our theories to possible
    > > > refutation.
    >
    > > Are you claiming that natural selection (or natural preservation) is
    > > not, even in principle, falsifiable?
    >
    > It's not even in principle a sentence.

I don't know what "even in principle" means in this context.
"natural selection" is a noun and modifier; of course it isn't a
complete sentence.
"Natural selection explains much or most of the evolution of species"
is an example of a sentence. It is, in fact correct. It is falsifiable
and has not been falsified.

    >
    > > Or are you claiming that it *hasn't* been falsified?
    >
    > What hasn't been falsified or isn't falsifiable. To which of the
    > multiple wikipedia revision are being referred to.
    >
    > http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia_natural_selectio...

I don't give a damn about Wiki scratch pad, and would be surprised if
anyone else did. Why do you think the theory of evolution is
incorrect? Lucretius will not save you, nor Jesus, nor your pathetic
scrambling of language. They do not address the evidence, nor the
theory.

The ToE is a cluster of closely related theories, supported by
multiple classes of evidence, falsifiable, but not falsified. It is
the foundation of modern biology, and possibly the most strongly
supported theory in science.

You have not, in all of your many repetitious posts, given any
indication that you understand it.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/2/11 10:42 AM 	

    On May 2, 3:37 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On May 2, 8:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 1, 9:31 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On May 1, 10:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

> [snip]


    >
    > > > >http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    > > > > '...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    > > > > ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    > > > > observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    > > > > natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as any
    > > > > science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. No
    > > > > creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    > > > > discrediting the theory....'
    >
    > > > > Referring one to hundreds of possible papers to elucidate the concept
    > > > > of natural preservation(Darwin preferred preservation over selection)
    > > > > as explaining some sort of general universal operator isn't a bold
    > > > > falsifiable enterprise. Popper insisted that we must make bold
    > > > > falsifiable predictions in order to expose our theories to possible
    > > > > refutation.
    >
    > > > Are you claiming that natural selection (or natural preservation) is
    > > > not, even in principle, falsifiable?
    >
    > > It's not even in principle a sentence.
    >

    > > > Or are you claiming that it *hasn't* been falsified?
    >
    > > What hasn't been falsified or isn't falsifiable. To which of the
    > > multiple wikipedia revision are being referred to.
    >
    > >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia_natural_selectio...
    >

    > Nice unmarked snippage job.  Poor referal job.  Scratchpad is not an
    > actual wikipedia article.  It is the stuff that, even for wikipedia,
    > finds its way to its appropriate site -- the trash.  Besides, I have
    > specifically defined and described when there is natural selection and
    > when there is not.
    >
    > http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_08.html
    >
    > You haven't replied.
    >
    > Nor have you replied to the parts you snipped (see below).
    >
    > ************
    >
    > > Rather refer us to a single paper that explains how nothing turned
    > > into something via a mechanism we can't define , that would be a bold
    > > falsifiable paper.
    >
    > Funny man. Turning nothing (or the spoken word) into something
    > material is actually a typical creationist claim about how God
    > 'created'.  Biological evolution, OTOH, turns something (a pre-
    > existing something) into something different.  Biological evolution
    > never starts with 'nothing'; at minimum, it starts with a self-
    > replicating system.  Can you show me a paper explaining how God can
    > turn nothing into something.

Begging the question with 'biology', which means study of life. You
can't define Life, hence can't say whether life itself started with
nothing or not.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/2/11 9:43 AM 	
We absolutely can define Life. We can't define it perfectly, but nothing
can be defined perfectly so that's not an issue.

And evolution isn't about life starting from nothing. It's not about
life starting at all.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/2/11 11:00 AM 	

    On May 2, 7:41 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > The ToE is a cluster of closely related theories, supported by
    > multiple classes of evidence, falsifiable, but not falsified. It is
    > the foundation of modern biology, and possibly the most strongly
    > supported theory in science.

Show the journal paper that explains why this ToE doesn't explain how
nothing turns into something.

    > You have not, in all of your many repetitious posts, given any
    > indication that you understand it.

But you haven't told me what is the ToE.  Refer me a Wikipedia page
that in turn refers to this Journal paper. IF there is in fact such a
thing as a ToE, then it has to be somewhere on Wikipedia with a link
at least.

Note that the term ToE was used by Spencer first in 1852 Leadership
magazine.

Thus there could be many concepts for which the symbols ToE is a
proxy. Are you referring to Spencer and if not to whom then. Your
answer is that it is in there somewhere in a library, maybe it is but
this is not a bold falsifiable statement.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Randy C 	5/2/11 11:04 AM 	

Since this is the talk origins web site, let's see what sort of help
we can get here in defining "evolution".

Hmm.....

According to the first definition at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
we see this:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-
pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic
material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be
slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in
the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and
dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

That works for me.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	5/2/11 11:06 AM 	

    On May 2, 1:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 2, 3:37 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

You mean to tell me that you don't know whether you are alive or
dead?  I vote for dead, at least brain dead, since words don't have
meaning.

Of course life (regardless of how one defines life) did not start from
"nothing".  Scientists may not know exactly what "something" life
arose from, but only creationists think life came from "nothing"
rather than from "something".  But abiogenesis (how life first arose)
is a different question than the question of evolution, which is a
process that turns something living into something living but
different in form or function.  Only creationists insist that all
creatures were magically poofed into existence from nothing.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	5/2/11 12:20 PM 	
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:30:28 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

    >I'd say that most "non-" words have no consistent synonym.
    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	John S. Wilkins 	5/2/11 5:00 PM 	
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > On May 2, 5:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > On May 1, 9:31 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > On May 1, 10:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >

    > > > >http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/letters/
    > > > > '...State Rep. Jeremy Faison says evolution has never been proved,
    > > > > ignoring the hundreds of scientific papers and books detailing the
    > > > > observational facts and totally supporting the logical framework of
    > > > > natural selection. Evolutionary biology is as well established as
    > > > > any science. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild.
    > > > > No creationist has ever produced a single scientific observation
    > > > > discrediting the theory....'
    > >
    > > > > Referring one to hundreds of possible papers to elucidate the
    > > > > concept of natural preservation(Darwin preferred preservation over
    > > > > selection) as explaining some sort of general universal operator
    > > > > isn't a bold falsifiable enterprise. Popper insisted that we must
    > > > > make bold falsifiable predictions in order to expose our theories to
    > > > > possible refutation.
    > >
    > > > Are you claiming that natural selection (or natural preservation) is
    > > > not, even in principle, falsifiable?
    > >
    > > It's not even in principle a sentence.
    >

    > I don't know what "even in principle" means in this context.
    > "natural selection" is a noun and modifier; of course it isn't a
    > complete sentence.
    > "Natural selection explains much or most of the evolution of species"
    > is an example of a sentence. It is, in fact correct. It is falsifiable
    > and has not been falsified.

Moreover, "natural selection" is the *name* of a *theory*. The theory
has various fully syntactic formulations, usually verbal but correctly
mathematical (and these have been posted oin this group many times,
usually by Howard Hershey). So when someone says "[Name] has not been
falsified" they are using, in a quite ordinary manner, the name as a
placeholder for that formulation.

That backspace tries to imply this is not ordinary says way more about
him and his idee fixe than it does about natural selection. He has
nominal aphasia.


    >
    > >
    > > > Or are you claiming that it *hasn't* been falsified?
    > >
    > > What hasn't been falsified or isn't falsifiable. To which of the
    > > multiple wikipedia revision are being referred to.
    > >
    > > http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia_natural_selectio...
    >

    > I don't give a damn about Wiki scratch pad, and would be surprised if
    > anyone else did. Why do you think the theory of evolution is
    > incorrect? Lucretius will not save you, nor Jesus, nor your pathetic
    > scrambling of language. They do not address the evidence, nor the
    > theory.

The scratchpad is where *he* and other antievolutionists are relegated
by the Wiki editors when they try to corrupt the actual entries on
Wikipedia.


    >
    > The ToE is a cluster of closely related theories, supported by
    > multiple classes of evidence, falsifiable, but not falsified. It is
    > the foundation of modern biology, and possibly the most strongly
    > supported theory in science.
    >

    > You have not, in all of your many repetitious posts, given any
    > indication that you understand it.
    >

> Kermit


-- 
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/2/11 11:17 PM 	
On May 3, 2:00 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

And these various theories all want to be herded under the rubric
natural selection, which makes them just as vacuous as a single
differential equation explaining all of physics.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/3/11 12:11 AM 	
Nooo, for one thing they don't "want" anything, they're theories not
decision-making agents. For another thing, they're herded under the
rubric "The theory of Evolution", not "natural selection".

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	5/3/11 7:54 AM 	

While it would be correct to say that natural selection explains much
or most of the phenotypically important/relevant elements of the
evolution of species, most evolution involves selectively neutral
changes in DNA sequence that have no phenotypic importance/
relevance.

The relative ratio of selectively neutral evolution to selectively
relevant evolution is likely different in species to species
comparisons.  Some populations that are considered to be separate
"species" (choose any relevant species definition) differ very little
from each other phenotypically but have been "separate" for extended
periods of time.  Others have been separated relatively short periods
of time (e.g. humans and chimps from their common ancestor), yet have
major phenotypic differences that allow one to distinguish the modern
species by looking at almost any bone of the body (excluding the
baculum, which is only present, as a vestigial, in one of the
species).  Some of the neotenous species or blind cave species, may
have significant phenotypic differences with relatively minor neutral
difference, having emerged as a species relatively recently.

Phenotypic differences between species are largely affected by the
more rapid process of natural selection.  The neutral differences are
largely affected by time since divergence.  The latter process is
slower and more consistent.  The former is more sporadic and faster.

    > >> Moreover, "natural selection" is the *name* of a *theory*. The theory
    > >> has various fully syntactic formulations, usually verbal but correctly
    > >> mathematical (and these have been posted oin this group many times,
    > >> usually by Howard Hershey). So when someone says "[Name] has not been
    > >> falsified" they are using, in a quite ordinary manner, the name as a
    > >> placeholder for that formulation.
    >
    > > And these various theories all want to be herded under the rubric
    > > natural selection, which makes them just as vacuous as a single
    > > differential equation explaining all of physics.
    >
    > Nooo, for one thing they don't "want" anything, they're theories not
    > decision-making agents. For another thing, they're herded under the
    > rubric "The theory of Evolution", not "natural selection".


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/4/11 9:14 AM 	
What is the difference between evolution and selection?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/4/11 9:29 AM 	

    On 04/05/11 17:14, backspace wrote:
    > What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >

In the context of biology and the Theory of Evolution, "evolution" is
the fact and the manner in which life has changed over its history.
"Selection" is one of the mechanisms that drive this change,
specifically that organisms experience different reproductive success
depending on their characteristics.

Of course, selection alone doesn't result in the evolution of life we
see. The other main factors are mutation (which drives the differences
in characteristics between organisms) and heritability (which ensures
that the effect of selection is amplified over the generations).

Those three alone give you an evolutionary process, as the people who
program genetic algorithms know. After that the evolution of life on
Earth in particular involves many other mechanisms and emergent
processes that are also included in the theory of evolution.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	5/4/11 9:43 AM 	

    On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > What is the difference between evolution and selection?

Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/4/11 9:52 AM 	
On May 4, 6:29 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/11 17:14, backspace wrote:> What is the difference between evolution and selection?

You mean the theory of evolution by Spencer 1852 In Leader Magazine(or
is that Leadership magazine)?

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Darwin%27s_Predecessors

Darwin plagiarized extensively the works of Buffon, Wells(1813), Prof.
Owen('Doctrine of Derivation' became Theory of Evolution) etc. ToE was
first used by Herbert Spencer(Darwin's Predecessors) in Leader
Magazine 1852. Only in the third edition of OoS did Darwin use ToE
without crediting Spencer or Owen. He took the same essential ideas
formulated by preceding authors, restating it under the semantic
object natural selection, a term used over 300 times when type setting
was done by hand. His 'breakthrough' was in stripping Owen's Doctrine
of Derivation of all remnants of theism , turning it into a
CharlesKingsley(1863) 'absolute empire of accident' idea.

Prof. Paul Janet for example's main gripe was that Darwin reduced
everything to blind chance as shown by Rev. Charles Hodge
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Charles_Hodge

See Dr. Wilkins blog entry here:
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/04/pope-on-evolution-more-of-the-same-teleological-thinking/

Note how he masterfully obfuscates the fact that back in
1859 ,everybody understood NS to be a random,blind chance concept.
What I have attempted to show is not that NS is a blind, moronic or
stupid, but that it was a tautological formulation that allowed one to
come to any conclusion as the facts demands. Back in 1859 it was
chance, when Dembski came and showed that even if you had eternity,
you won't get a single amino acid,  the non-sequitur conclusion became
non-random or directed. A tautological frame work allows one to adapt
the story to the facts.

It is a fact(or at least strong theory) that given random events, you
won't get any organism in eternity. This was not known in 1859.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/4/11 10:37 AM 	
On May 4, 6:43 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:


    > On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >

    > Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.

In the pattern or design sense?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	5/4/11 10:43 AM 	

In the knitting pattern design sense

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/4/11 10:53 AM 	

    On 04/05/11 17:52, backspace wrote:
    > On May 4, 6:29 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> On 04/05/11 17:14, backspace wrote:> What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >>
    >> In the context of biology and the Theory of Evolution, "evolution" is
    >> the fact and the manner in which life has changed over its history.
    >> "Selection" is one of the mechanisms that drive this change,
    >> specifically that organisms experience different reproductive success
    >> depending on their characteristics.
    >>
    >> Of course, selection alone doesn't result in the evolution of life we
    >> see. The other main factors are mutation (which drives the differences
    >> in characteristics between organisms) and heritability (which ensures
    >> that the effect of selection is amplified over the generations).
    >>
    >> Those three alone give you an evolutionary process, as the people who
    >> program genetic algorithms know. After that the evolution of life on
    >> Earth in particular involves many other mechanisms and emergent
    >> processes that are also included in the theory of evolution.
    >
    > You mean the theory of evolution by Spencer 1852 In Leader Magazine(or
    > is that Leadership magazine)?

I have no idea who that person or that magazine is, so no. You can
easily find out about what the theory of evolution is in biology by
cracking open a biology textbook or even Wikipedia. It's a *current*
*scientific* theory. And as with all science, the most recent knowledge
tends to be the more accurate knowledge. What one person thought in 1852
is irrelevant here.

    >
    > http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Darwin%27s_Predecessors
    >
    > Darwin plagiarized extensively the works of Buffon, Wells(1813), Prof.
    > Owen('Doctrine of Derivation' became Theory of Evolution) etc.

Darwin could have seen an innocent child in a field receive the Theory
of Evolution from Xenu Himself on golden plates, killed her, read the
plates, melted them and used the resulting gold and knowledge to gain
fame and fortune, it would have no effect on the validity of the Theory
of Evolution as it is understood today.

    > ToE was
    > first used by Herbert Spencer(Darwin's Predecessors) in Leader
    > Magazine 1852. Only in the third edition of OoS did Darwin use ToE
    > without crediting Spencer or Owen. He took the same essential ideas
    > formulated by preceding authors, restating it under the semantic
    > object natural selection, a term used over 300 times when type setting
    > was done by hand. His 'breakthrough' was in stripping Owen's Doctrine
    > of Derivation of all remnants of theism , turning it into a
    > CharlesKingsley(1863) 'absolute empire of accident' idea.
    >
    > Prof. Paul Janet for example's main gripe was that Darwin reduced
    > everything to blind chance as shown by Rev. Charles Hodge
    > http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Charles_Hodge
    >
    > See Dr. Wilkins blog entry here:
    > http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/04/pope-on-evolution-more-of-the-same-teleological-thinking/
    >
    > Note how he masterfully obfuscates the fact that back in
    > 1859 ,everybody understood NS to be a random,blind chance concept.

Even if that were true, in 1859 everybody understood "relativity" to not
apply literally to time and space, "charm" to refer to a human
characteristic instead of subatomic particles, "atom" to refer to an
indivisible basic component of matter instead of a perfectly divisible
and mutable structure made up of smaller components...
The meanings of words change, and this is even truer in science where
people need to find words or phrases to refer to new concepts all the time.

    > What I have attempted to show is not that NS is a blind, moronic or
    > stupid, but that it was a tautological formulation that allowed one to
    > come to any conclusion as the facts demands.

You have asserted this. I haven't seen you attempt to show it, unless
you mean those posts where you substitute random words for "natural" or
"selection" and show the resulting phrase is absurd or something, which
does nothing to show what you're looking for.

    > Back in 1859 it was
    > chance, when Dembski came and showed that even if you had eternity,
    > you won't get a single amino acid,  the non-sequitur conclusion became
    > non-random or directed. A tautological frame work allows one to adapt
    > the story to the facts.
    >
    > It is a fact(or at least strong theory) that given random events, you
    > won't get any organism in eternity. This was not known in 1859.
    >

Things can be non-random and not directed by an intelligence. Multiple
examples have been given to you which I haven't seen you effectively
address. Another example : mix oil and water. Let it lie for a time, go
read a book. The resulting distribution of oil and water is non-random
without your doing anything to direct it. (if anything, I'm pretty sure
60% of cooking is about trying to force ("direct" if you will) water and
oils into uniform random distributions)

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/4/11 11:26 AM 	
Why do you ask this question ? You know patently well that nobody here
accepts your artificial dichotomy between the two, we don't even
understand how you're defining them. You know this because you've
brought it up already upthread and that's what you were told. And what
concept are you applying the "sense" question to anyway ? Do you mean
the pattern or design sense of selection ? Of mechanisms ? Of resulting
? Of evolution ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	5/4/11 11:45 AM 	

Syntactically, you'd think he means the "is one of" part. Selection
is, in the pattern sense, one of the several..." vs. "selection is, in
the design sense, one of.." You know, the way I'm in the functional
sense "part of" my university, but not in the physical sense (though
if I sit here much longer without dinner, that may change :o))

Does it make sense to you, me or anyone other person X so that X is
not backspace? most certainly not.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/4/11 12:30 PM 	

    On May 4, 8:26 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On 04/05/11 18:37, backspace wrote:> On May 4, 6:43 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    > >> On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>> What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >
    > >> Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.
    >
    > > In the pattern or design sense?
    >
    > Why do you ask this question ? You know patently well that nobody here
    > accepts your artificial dichotomy between the two, we don't even
    > understand how you're defining them. You know this because you've
    > brought it up already upthread and that's what you were told. And what
    > concept are you applying the "sense" question to anyway ? Do you mean
    > the pattern or design sense of selection ? Of mechanisms ? Of resulting
    > ? Of evolution ?

It is a perplexing issue to those not YEC,  KJV, like myself, but I am
trying my best to explain it. Note that I am pushing a YEC religious
agenda, but in doing so can't use deception, it is 'streng verboten'
by my Lord Jesus to lie for him. Thus if anything at least accept my
intentions as forthright and honest. There is some very smart people
on this forum, with more brains than me , who are lying through their
teeth, they delight in deception, guile is their joy.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html
'...How does the scientific community explain specified complexity?
Usually via an evolutionary algorithm. By an evolutionary algorithm I
mean any algorithm that generates contingency via some chance process
and then sifts the so-generated contingency via some law-like
process...'

Would it be accurate to replace law-like with  '''.....some design-
like process.....'''.  Dembski it seems used 'law' in the design
sense.

We speak of the First law of thermodynamics and use law
metaphorically, meaning a repetitive observation that matter is
neither made nor destroyed. Such a 'law' need not hold tomorrow, we
assume it will though.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/4/11 12:39 PM 	

    On May 4, 8:26 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On 04/05/11 18:37, backspace wrote:> On May 4, 6:43 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    > >> On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>> What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >
    > >> Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.
    >
    > > In the pattern or design sense?
    >
    > Why do you ask this question ? You know patently well that nobody here
    > accepts your artificial dichotomy between the two, we don't even
    > understand how you're defining them.

What about theistic evolutionists who do believe evolution takes
place in a guided by God design sense? This is the problem with
language and why we must use subscripts to document what we mean as
explained at :
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions

This avoids diatribes about the meaning of 'evolution' (it has no
meaning) and rather allows a person to state what he actually means.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/4/11 1:40 PM 	

    (2011/05/05 4:30), backspace wrote:
    > On May 4, 8:26 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    >> On 04/05/11 18:37, backspace wrote:>  On May 4, 6:43 pm, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>  wrote:
    >>>> On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com>  wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >>
    >>>> Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.
    >>
    >>> In the pattern or design sense?
    >>
    >> Why do you ask this question ? You know patently well that nobody here
    >> accepts your artificial dichotomy between the two, we don't even
    >> understand how you're defining them. You know this because you've
    >> brought it up already upthread and that's what you were told. And what
    >> concept are you applying the "sense" question to anyway ? Do you mean
    >> the pattern or design sense of selection ? Of mechanisms ? Of resulting
    >> ? Of evolution ?
    >
    > It is a perplexing issue to those not YEC,  KJV, like myself, but I am
    > trying my best to explain it.

It's not that hard. Define "pattern" and "design" the way you're using
them. Show they're mutually exclusive and cover all cases. Show this
matches some non-arcane uses of the terms.

And if after that we still don't accept your terminology, don't use it
when asking us questions.

    > Note that I am pushing a YEC religious
    > agenda, but in doing so can't use deception, it is 'streng verboten'
    > by my Lord Jesus to lie for him. Thus if anything at least accept my
    > intentions as forthright and honest. There is some very smart people
    > on this forum, with more brains than me , who are lying through their
    > teeth, they delight in deception, guile is their joy.
    >
    > http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html
    > '...How does the scientific community explain specified complexity?
    > Usually via an evolutionary algorithm. By an evolutionary algorithm I
    > mean any algorithm that generates contingency via some chance process
    > and then sifts the so-generated contingency via some law-like
    > process...'
    >
    > Would it be accurate to replace law-like with  '''.....some design-
    > like process.....'''.  Dembski it seems used 'law' in the design
    > sense.
    >
    > We speak of the First law of thermodynamics and use law
    > metaphorically, meaning a repetitive observation that matter is
    > neither made nor destroyed. Such a 'law' need not hold tomorrow, we
    > assume it will though.
    >

That did nothing to answer any of the questions I'd asked. If that's
what "trying [your] best to explain it" consists of, it bodes pretty
badly for your explanatory powers.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/4/11 1:44 PM 	
What does that have to do with my questions ?

And theistic evolution is perfectly consistent with (if a
non-parsimonious version of) the Theory of Evolution. So as far as the
meaning of "evolution" goes, that particular issue isn't a problem.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	5/4/11 2:00 PM 	

    On May 4, 8:39 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 4, 8:26 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On 04/05/11 18:37, backspace wrote:> On May 4, 6:43 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    > > >> On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > >>> What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >
    > > >> Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.
    >
    > > > In the pattern or design sense?
    >
    > > Why do you ask this question ? You know patently well that nobody here
    > > accepts your artificial dichotomy between the two, we don't even
    > > understand how you're defining them.
    >
    > What about theistic evolutionists who do believe evolution takes
    > place in a guided by God design sense?

..is a religious interpretation of a scientific theory. Since it
leaves the empirical content unchanged (e.g. the descent relation
between any  two species that the theory of evolution postulates, or
the identification of the specific pressure that gave a specific trait
its advantage), it does not matter a bit for the science side of
things. Which is yet another reason why the "pattern design"
distinction is irrelevant.


    > This is the problem with
    > language and why we must use subscripts to document what we mean as
    > explained at :http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions
    >
    > This avoids diatribes about the meaning of 'evolution' (it has no
    > meaning) and rather allows a person to state what he actually means.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mark Isaak 	5/5/11 6:34 AM 	

    On Wed, 04 May 2011 12:39:34 -0700, backspace wrote:

    > On May 4, 8:26 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> On 04/05/11 18:37, backspace wrote:> On May 4, 6:43 pm, Burkhard
    >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    >> >> On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >>> What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >>
    >> >> Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.
    >>
    >> > In the pattern or design sense?
    >>
    >> Why do you ask this question ? You know patently well that nobody here
    >> accepts your artificial dichotomy between the two, we don't even
    >> understand how you're defining them.
    >
    > What about theistic evolutionists who do believe evolution takes place

> in a guided by God design sense? This is the problem with language and


    > why we must use subscripts to document what we mean as explained at :
    > http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions
    >
    > This avoids diatribes about the meaning of 'evolution' (it has no
    > meaning) and rather allows a person to state what he actually means.

Backspace, as you use the word "meaning", there is not a single word in
the entire world that has meaning.

There *are* problems with language, the main three being, (1) almost all
word meanings have fuzzy edges; there is a core meaning that everyone
agress is unambiguous, but there are also a few borderline cases, where
people can disagree whether the word applies or not; (2) some words have
more than one distinct meaning, and context does not always clarify which
is intended; (3) sometimes people want to talk about something for which
there is no word yet.

But none of those, I think, apply to the problem you have.  Your problem,
it seems to me, is that you do not like what other people are saying --
perhaps you cannot understand how they can even mean what they say -- and
so you change the meanings of their words out from under them.  It is a
practice that serves only to confuse and irritate everyone involved, and
I wish you would stop.

-- 
 Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
 honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
 pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	5/5/11 11:58 AM 	
On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT), the following


    appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com>:

>What is the difference between evolution and selection?

Before going off on a tangent with yet another example of
your inability to understand plain writing, you need to
answer this:

    >On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    ><steph...@gmail.com>:

>>In other words non-random has no synonym?

    >Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
    >reason you feel it must have one? Does "non-scaly" have a
    >consistent synonym? How about "non-winged"?
    >"Non-electronic"?

[Crickets...]

-- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	SortingItOut 	5/6/11 9:37 PM 	

    On May 4, 2:39 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 4, 8:26 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On 04/05/11 18:37, backspace wrote:> On May 4, 6:43 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    > > >> On May 4, 5:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

    > > >>> What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >

    > > >> Selection is one of the several mechanisms that result in evolution.
    >
    > > > In the pattern or design sense?
    >
    > > Why do you ask this question ? You know patently well that nobody here
    > > accepts your artificial dichotomy between the two, we don't even
    > > understand how you're defining them.
    >
    > What about theistic evolutionists who do believe evolution takes
    > place in a guided by God design sense?

What about them?  Theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists
can both discuss natural selection without getting all hung up over
the definitions of words.  The guiding hand of God (if that is the
case) is undetectable both in the fossil record and in present-day
observations, and therefore has no impact on the Theory of Evolution
or the words used to describe it.

    > This is the problem with
    > language and why we must use subscripts to document what we mean as
    > explained at :http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions
    >
    > This avoids diatribes about the meaning of 'evolution' (it has no
    > meaning) and rather allows a person to state what he actually means.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	5/7/11 1:21 PM 	
On Thu, 05 May 2011 11:58:20 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

    >On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    ><steph...@gmail.com>:
    >

    >>What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >

    >Before going off on a tangent with yet another example of
    >your inability to understand plain writing, you need to
    >answer this:
    >
    >>On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    >><steph...@gmail.com>:
    >
    >>>In other words non-random has no synonym?
    >
    >>Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
    >>reason you feel it must have one? Does "non-scaly" have a
    >>consistent synonym? How about "non-winged"?
    >>"Non-electronic"?
    >
    >[Crickets...]

And BS, like Tony, runs away...


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	5/7/11 1:46 PM 	
On Sat, 07 May 2011 13:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

    >On Thu, 05 May 2011 11:58:20 -0700, the following appeared
    >in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
    >
    >>On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    >><steph...@gmail.com>:
    >>
    >>>What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >>
    >>Before going off on a tangent with yet another example of
    >>your inability to understand plain writing, you need to
    >>answer this:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    >>><steph...@gmail.com>:
    >>
    >>>>In other words non-random has no synonym?
    >>
    >>>Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
    >>>reason you feel it must have one? Does "non-scaly" have a
    >>>consistent synonym? How about "non-winged"?
    >>>"Non-electronic"?
    >>
    >>[Crickets...]
    >
    >And BS, like Tony, runs away...

At the risk of prolonged an already far too long thread, I have been
reading "The Information" by Janes Gleick who answers this very point.
Of course we all have answered this point over and over but Gleick
summarizes it well with good references (from Chapter 12):

"It is a simple word, random, and everyone knows what it means.
Everyone, that is, and no one.  Philosophers and mathematicians
struggled endlessly.  Wheeler said this much, at least: "Probability,
like time, is a concept invented by humans, and humans have to bear
the responsibility for the obscurities that attend it."...John Maynard
Keynes tackled randomness in terms of its opposites, and he chose
three: knowledge, causality, and design.  What is known in advance,
determined by a cause, or organized according to plan cannot be
random."

Backspace, of course, in initiating this thread cannot recognize any
difference between a cause (especially a cause involving natural laws
-- the workings out of physics including biological evolution) and
plan or design.

Wheeler's quote is from "At Home in the Universe, Masters of Modern
Physics", Amer Inst Physics 1994,  vol. 9, p. 304.  Keynes' is from "A
Treatise on Probability", Macmillan, London, 1921, p. 281.

I cannot give a page number to Gleick's citation because Kindle only
uses "locations".  On Kindle it is around 12995.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/8/11 2:09 AM 	
On May 7, 10:46 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 13:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>


    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Thu, 05 May 2011 11:58:20 -0700, the following appeared

> >in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:


    >
    > >>On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    > >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

> >><stephan...@gmail.com>:


    >
    > >>>What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >
    > >>Before going off on a tangent with yet another example of
    > >>your inability to understand plain writing, you need to
    > >>answer this:
    >
    > >>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
    > >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

> >>><stephan...@gmail.com>:

It has to to do with the ambiguity with language and how we use it to
represent our ideas within an apriori assumed paradigm.
The non-theist paradigm is that all notions of design can only be the
appearance of design, nothing is actually ever designed.

Take for example the synonym of non-random, directed:
1) The passage between two rocks sculpted through time by storms ,
directed a blast of wind in my direction .
2) The engineer sculpted a perfectly dimensioned hexagon through a
rock in order to direct wind through it.

In both 1 and 2 we have the *object* directed, which like a hammer or
piece of rubber represents only itself. Any expression of the
difference in ideas between 1(pattern) and 2(design) is symbol
mediated. The symbol *directed* can like almost every other symbol in
the English language be used to represent either 1 or 2.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	r norman 	5/8/11 5:27 AM 	

People use the same  words in different ways at different times for
different purposes.  Aldous Huxley once wrote an essay about the
difference between scientifric and literary writing to the effect that
scientists (at least in their science writing) attempt to craft words
so that there is only one possible meaning whereas  people doing what
is called "creative writing", especailly poets, craft words
specificaly to create ambiguity and multiple interpretations.

You craft words seemingly in order to produce confusion and
consternation, as in your private notions of pattern vs. design that
you project on everything you see but that nobody else seems to
understand.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	5/8/11 10:58 AM 	
On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:46:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

>On Sat, 07 May 2011 13:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>


    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 05 May 2011 11:58:20 -0700, the following appeared

>>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:


    >>
    >>>On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

>>><steph...@gmail.com>:


    >>>
    >>>>What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >>>
    >>>Before going off on a tangent with yet another example of
    >>>your inability to understand plain writing, you need to
    >>>answer this:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

>>>><steph...@gmail.com>:


    >>>
    >>>>>In other words non-random has no synonym?
    >>>
    >>>>Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
    >>>>reason you feel it must have one? Does "non-scaly" have a
    >>>>consistent synonym? How about "non-winged"?
    >>>>"Non-electronic"?
    >>>
    >>>[Crickets...]
    >>
    >>And BS, like Tony, runs away...
    >
    >At the risk of prolonged an already far too long thread, I have been
    >reading "The Information" by Janes Gleick who answers this very point.
    >Of course we all have answered this point over and over but Gleick
    >summarizes it well with good references (from Chapter 12):
    >
    >"It is a simple word, random, and everyone knows what it means.
    >Everyone, that is, and no one.  Philosophers and mathematicians
    >struggled endlessly.  Wheeler said this much, at least: "Probability,
    >like time, is a concept invented by humans, and humans have to bear
    >the responsibility for the obscurities that attend it."...John Maynard
    >Keynes tackled randomness in terms of its opposites, and he chose
    >three: knowledge, causality, and design.  What is known in advance,
    >determined by a cause, or organized according to plan cannot be
    >random."

Thanks. I believe that this point, that words such as
"random" have different meanings which depend on context and
venue, either escapes BS or is consciously rejected by him
in order to promulgate confusion. Since he refuses to engage
in actual discussion of this point, and ignores any
question, the answer to which is intended to add clarity, I
suspect the latter.

    >Backspace, of course, in initiating this thread cannot recognize any
    >difference between a cause (especially a cause involving natural laws
    >-- the workings out of physics including biological evolution) and
    >plan or design.
    >
    >Wheeler's quote is from "At Home in the Universe, Masters of Modern
    >Physics", Amer Inst Physics 1994,  vol. 9, p. 304.  Keynes' is from "A
    >Treatise on Probability", Macmillan, London, 1921, p. 281.
    >
    >I cannot give a page number to Gleick's citation because Kindle only
    >uses "locations".  On Kindle it is around 12995.
    >
    >

    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	5/8/11 11:13 AM 	
On Sun, 8 May 2011 02:09:10 -0700 (PDT), the following


    appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
    <steph...@gmail.com>:

>On May 7, 10:46 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 May 2011 13:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>


    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Thu, 05 May 2011 11:58:20 -0700, the following appeared

>> >in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:


    >>
    >> >>On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >> >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

>> >><stephan...@gmail.com>:


    >>
    >> >>>What is the difference between evolution and selection?
    >>
    >> >>Before going off on a tangent with yet another example of
    >> >>your inability to understand plain writing, you need to
    >> >>answer this:
    >>
    >> >>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
    >> >>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

>> >>><stephan...@gmail.com>:


    >>
    >> >>>>In other words non-random has no synonym?
    >>
    >> >>>Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
    >> >>>reason you feel it must have one? Does "non-scaly" have a
    >> >>>consistent synonym? How about "non-winged"?
    >> >>>"Non-electronic"?
    >>
    >> >>[Crickets...]
    >>
    >> >And BS, like Tony, runs away...
    >>
    >> At the risk of prolonged an already far too long thread, I have been
    >> reading "The Information" by Janes Gleick who answers this very point.
    >> Of course we all have answered this point over and over but Gleick
    >> summarizes it well with good references (from Chapter 12):
    >>
    >> "It is a simple word, random, and everyone knows what it means.
    >> Everyone, that is, and no one.  Philosophers and mathematicians
    >> struggled endlessly.  Wheeler said this much, at least: "Probability,
    >> like time, is a concept invented by humans, and humans have to bear
    >> the responsibility for the obscurities that attend it."...John Maynard
    >> Keynes tackled randomness in terms of its opposites, and he chose
    >> three: knowledge, causality, and design.  What is known in advance,
    >> determined by a cause, or organized according to plan cannot be
    >> random."
    >>

    >> Backspace, of course, in initiating this thread cannot recognize any
    >> difference between a cause (especially a cause involving natural laws
    >> -- the workings out of physics including biological evolution) and
    >> plan or design.
    >>
    >> Wheeler's quote is from "At Home in the Universe, Masters of Modern
    >> Physics", Amer Inst Physics 1994,  vol. 9, p. 304.  Keynes' is from "A
    >> Treatise on Probability", Macmillan, London, 1921, p. 281.
    >>
    >> I cannot give a page number to Gleick's citation because Kindle only
    >> uses "locations".  On Kindle it is around 12995.
    >

    >It has to to do with the ambiguity with language and how we use it to
    >represent our ideas within an apriori assumed paradigm.

This doesn't seem to be a problem unless you make it one;
the meaning of "random" is different depending on whether
one is using it mathematically (zero correlation) or
casually (without implementing specific selection), and most
adults know the difference.

    >The non-theist paradigm is that all notions of design can only be the
    >appearance of design, nothing is actually ever designed.

Nope. The "paradigm" (actually, the observation) is that
design cannot be determined a priori without additional
information. We know a watch is designed because we design
watches, but we have no basis for determining whether a cell
is designed because we don't design them, and neither, so
far as we know, does anyone else. We *do* know that there's
a viable pathway from chemical compounds to living cells
which violates no known laws of physics or chemistry, but we
have zero evidence that any entity, supernatural or
otherwise, exists which creates living cells "from scratch".
And until we discover such an entity we have no reason to
postulate one.

    >Take for example the synonym of non-random, directed:

Directed is not a synonym for non-random. I addressed this
point earlier...

[You]

    "In other words non-random has no synonym?"

[Me]

    "Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
    reason you feel it must have one? Does 'non-scaly' have a
    consistent synonym? How about 'non-winged'?
    'Non-electronic'?"

....and you ignored it.

    >1) The passage between two rocks sculpted through time by storms ,
    >directed a blast of wind in my direction .
    >2) The engineer sculpted a perfectly dimensioned hexagon through a
    >rock in order to direct wind through it.
    >
    >In both 1 and 2 we have the *object* directed, which like a hammer or
    >piece of rubber represents only itself. Any expression of the
    >difference in ideas between 1(pattern) and 2(design) is symbol
    >mediated. The symbol *directed* can like almost every other symbol in
    >the English language be used to represent either 1 or 2.
    >
    >Why is this so difficult to understand?

Possibly because your premise is wrong?


    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	SortingItOut 	5/9/11 12:24 AM 	

Why do you think this is significant regarding natural selection or
the theory of evolution?  Natural selection looks undirected but could
in fact be directed to some degree by a god.  Nevertheless natural
selection can still be studied, written about, taught, and learned
using words that both theists and non-theists understand.  Do you
think there's a problem in this area?

    > The non-theist paradigm is that all notions of design can only be the
    > appearance of design, nothing is actually ever designed.

Huh???  Can you cite anything that states this?  This makes no sense,
and I've never seen anyone make this claim.

    >
    > Take for example the synonym of non-random, directed:

    > 1) The passage between two rocks sculpted through time by storms ,
    > directed a blast of wind in my direction .
    > 2) The engineer sculpted a perfectly dimensioned hexagon through a
    > rock in order to direct wind through it.
    >
    > In both 1 and 2 we have the *object* directed, which like a hammer or
    > piece of rubber represents only itself. Any expression of the
    > difference in ideas between 1(pattern) and 2(design) is symbol
    > mediated. The symbol *directed* can like almost every other symbol in
    > the English language be used to represent either 1 or 2.
    >
    > Why is this so difficult to understand?

So the word 'direct' has multiple meanings?  What is the actual point
you're making here?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/9/11 7:11 AM 	

Yes, because the concept understood with NS as used by  John Tyndall
during his Belfast address was the pages in OoS as identified by
Charles Hodge around 1874. When you though think of NS you are not
referring to the actual text of Charles Darwin, nor the concept
Tyndall had with natural selection,  you have in fact no idea what you
mean by this, it is a form of mental illness that I am pointing out.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Charles_Hodge

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/9/11 7:57 AM 	
What concept could you possibly be referring to ? Please describe it,
without using the words "natural", "selection", "decision" or "random"
(as those are words where we don't agree on a definition).

Then explain how it differs from the concept modern biologists understand.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	5/9/11 11:52 AM 	

No, "natural selection" refers to a concept understood by millions of
English speakers. Whatever its history, its meaning is contemporary,
and educated English speakers have no trouble with it. Your inability
to understand commonly used words and phrases is not  a problem for
SortingItOut.

Misunderstanding nineteenth century writers is no helping in using the
dictionary, nor in writing an intelligible post.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	SortingItOut 	5/9/11 10:00 PM 	

And why is this a problem?

    > When you though think of NS you are not
    > referring to the actual text of Charles Darwin, nor the concept
    > Tyndall had with natural selection,  you have in fact no idea what you
    > mean by this,

Do you have anything to support this wild claim?

    > it is a form of mental illness that I am pointing out.

Can you point it out more clearly?  I completely missed it.

>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Charles_Hodge


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/10/11 5:45 AM 	

Would you please define what concept  you understand with natural
selection. Note that Jerry Fodor have asked in his LRB book review
essay:  What then is the intended meaning of natural selection:?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings  by
Jerry Fodor.

My views on this are written up elsewhere.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/10/11 6:48 AM 	

Jerry Fodor doesn't seem to understand natural selection at all, or
rather he seems to confuse it with hyper-adaptationism. He formulates it
in a way that sounds good, but then says this : "Here’s the problem: you
can read adaptationism as saying that environments select creatures for
their fitness; or you can read it as saying that environments select
traits for their fitness. It looks like the theory must be read both
ways if it’s to do the work that it’s intended to: on the one hand,
forces of selection must act on individual creatures since it is
individual creatures that live, struggle, reproduce and die. On the
other hand, forces of selection must act on traits since it is
phenotypes – bundles of heritable traits – whose evolution selection
theory purports to explain. It isn’t obvious, however, that the theory
of selection can sustain both readings at once."

Why on Earth not ? He then goes on to talk about spandrels, and how can
we tell whether the spandrels were selected for or the arches were, but
the fact that this might be difficult to determine has no effect on the
idea that one or both of them were indeed selected for. Or maybe they
weren't : they might both be consequences of a third thing, or have
arisen through random drift. Those possibilities can be distinguished
however : things that arise through random drift tend to be extremely
variable across species or individuals, taking it away doesn't affect
the organism much and they don't tend to be very complex. And we can see
which traits are linked to others by looking at their distribution, or
by taking them away and seeing the effect.

Then he says that breeding and natural selection are completely
different processes, which, uh, no. (in fact breeding can be seen as a
case of co-evolution, and that's what it tends to be called when we see
it in other organisms such as ants breeding fungi)

I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one’s pet theory can
distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of
adaptationism I’ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes
along."

Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
white colour was selected to match their environment. There could be
other factors (say, to save on pigments ?) but you'd have to come up
with them, and you'd have to show that it's not a factor that affects
brown bears (so, not to save on pigments). (and then there's the fact
that a whole lot of animals that live in the same white environment as
the polar bear are also white, unlike similar animals in different
environments)

Then he builds an opposition between phenotypes being constrained by the
environment and being constrained with the organism's prior structure.
As if there was an opposition there. He even admits that all reasonable
people say it's both. So... the problem... ?

Then he illustrates his point by talking about those foxes that were
bred for tameness and spontaneously ended up with dog-like traits such
as floppy ears and curly tails. That is indeed a fascinating phenomenon.
Then he says this : "But the ancillary phenotypic effects of selection
for tameness seem to be perfectly arbitrary. In particular, they
apparently aren’t adaptations; there isn’t any teleological explanation
– any explanation in terms of fitness – as to why domesticated animals
tend to have floppy ears. They just do."

Oh wow, what a scientific point of view ! Yay for a spirit of inquiry !
So what, Fodor proposes we replace natural selection with "meh. Shit
happens" ?

He then concludes by railing against evolutionary psychology and the
idea that every single trait can be explained by a just-so story, which
I suppose some people really think but I've mostly seen that point of
view in strawman form, and says this : "Not all o...

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/10/11 7:05 AM 	
On May 10, 3:48 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one�s pet theory can


    > distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
    > A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
    > for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of

> adaptationism I�ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes
> along."

    > Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
    > that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
    > white colour was selected to match their environment.

If the bears were in a black environment but still white, how would
selection explain this?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/10/11 7:20 AM 	
There might be some other function to being white, such as energy
conservation (for example, creatures living in lightless environment
tend to lose their pigmentation). Or the trait "being white" might be
tied to some other trait that's selected for. Or it could be random
drift; lack of hair pigmentation is hardly a complex trait (indeed
random drift is one possible explanation for why creatures living in
lightless environments tend to lose their pigmentation). Or there could
be a barrier to evolving something other than a white colour, for
example they could be polar bears that moved to a black environment too
recently to have evolved the appropriate colouring.

And if there was some context in which NONE of these explanation work ?
Why, the theory of evolution would be in something of a pickle now
wouldn't it ! And if rocks fell up you can bet we'd be having doubts on
the theory of gravity, too. But it so happens that rocks fall down and
that white bears do, in fact, live in a white environment.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Burkhard 	5/10/11 7:39 AM 	
You mean in the essay where he also says the following:

"But that argument [of our common descent]is over now. Except,
perhaps, in remote backwaters of the American Midwest, the Darwinian
account of our species’ history is common ground in all civilised
discussions, and so it should be. The evidence really is overwhelming.

    > What then is the intended meaning of natural selection:?

Mhh, yes, and if you stop reading at  that point, you might get the
impression that this is a problem. However, if you do read, on, you
realise that it is what is commonly understood as a rhetorical
question, which he then answers sufficiently clearly to be able to
state this (my emphasis) :

"It is, in short, an entirely EMPIRICAL question to what extent
exogenous variables are what shape phenotypes; and it’s entirely
possible that adaptationism is the wrong answer."

with other words, the meaning of "selection" is clear enough to allow
empirical testing of its hypothesis, and it might just be that it is
less frequent than "strict adaptionists" think. He mentions evo-devo
as an alternative, a more radical one woudl have been strict neutral
theories (where most of the change happens due to genetic drift)

So not a question of meaning, let alone one of tautologies, but
several schools within a broadly speaking Darwinian approach debating
which theory explains best the available evidence; I don't think any
evolutionary biologist disagrees with that idea (being soemthing of a
neutralist myself, I most certainly hoe not)


    >
    > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings by
    > Jerry Fodor.
    >

    > My views on this are written up elsewhere.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	5/10/11 1:18 PM 	

I think backspace will stop reading you at this point.

...you lost him on "commonly understood".

    > which he then answers sufficiently clearly to be able to
    > state this (my emphasis) :
    >
    > "It is, in short, an entirely EMPIRICAL question to what extent
    > exogenous variables are what shape phenotypes; and it’s entirely
    > possible that adaptationism is the wrong answer."
    >
    > with other words, the meaning of "selection" is clear enough to allow
    > empirical testing of its hypothesis, and it might just be that it is
    > less frequent than "strict adaptionists" think. He mentions evo-devo
    > as an alternative, a more radical one woudl have been strict neutral
    > theories (where most of the change happens due to genetic drift)
    >
    > So not a question of meaning, let alone one of tautologies, but
    > several schools within a broadly speaking Darwinian approach debating
    > which theory explains best the available evidence; I don't think any
    > evolutionary biologist disagrees with that idea (being soemthing of a
    > neutralist myself, I most certainly hoe not)
    >
    >
    > >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings by
    > > Jerry Fodor.
    >
    > > My views on this are written up elsewhere.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Bob Casanova 	5/10/11 3:49 PM 	
On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:13:49 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

No response, BS? Why is that?

>On Sun, 8 May 2011 02:09:10 -0700 (PDT), the following


    >appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

><steph...@gmail.com>:

    >This doesn't seem to be a problem unless you make it one;
    >the meaning of "random" is different depending on whether
    >one is using it mathematically (zero correlation) or
    >casually (without implementing specific selection), and most
    >adults know the difference.
    >

    >>The non-theist paradigm is that all notions of design can only be the
    >>appearance of design, nothing is actually ever designed.
    >

    >Nope. The "paradigm" (actually, the observation) is that
    >design cannot be determined a priori without additional
    >information. We know a watch is designed because we design
    >watches, but we have no basis for determining whether a cell
    >is designed because we don't design them, and neither, so
    >far as we know, does anyone else. We *do* know that there's
    >a viable pathway from chemical compounds to living cells
    >which violates no known laws of physics or chemistry, but we
    >have zero evidence that any entity, supernatural or
    >otherwise, exists which creates living cells "from scratch".
    >And until we discover such an entity we have no reason to
    >postulate one.
    >

    >>Take for example the synonym of non-random, directed:
    >

    >Directed is not a synonym for non-random. I addressed this
    >point earlier...
    >
    >[You]
    >

    >"In other words non-random has no synonym?"
    >

>[Me]


    >
    >"Not a consistent (always valid) one, no; is there some
    >reason you feel it must have one? Does 'non-scaly' have a
    >consistent synonym? How about 'non-winged'?
    >'Non-electronic'?"
    >

>....and you ignored it.


    >
    >>1) The passage between two rocks sculpted through time by storms ,
    >>directed a blast of wind in my direction .
    >>2) The engineer sculpted a perfectly dimensioned hexagon through a
    >>rock in order to direct wind through it.
    >>
    >>In both 1 and 2 we have the *object* directed, which like a hammer or
    >>piece of rubber represents only itself. Any expression of the
    >>difference in ideas between 1(pattern) and 2(design) is symbol
    >>mediated. The symbol *directed* can like almost every other symbol in
    >>the English language be used to represent either 1 or 2.
    >>
    >>Why is this so difficult to understand?
    >

    >Possibly because your premise is wrong?
    -- 

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
                              - McNameless

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/11/11 12:19 AM 	

    On May 10, 10:18 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 10, 7:39 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 10, 1:45 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > On May 10, 7:00 am, SortingItOut <eri...@home.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > On May 9, 9:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > On May 9, 9:24 am, SortingItOut <eri...@home.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > > On May 8, 4:09 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >

Fodor wrote: '''...What then is the intended meaning of natural
selection? The question is wide open as from this writing....'''

This doesn't sound like a rhetorical question to me.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/11/11 12:18 AM 	

    On May 10, 4:20 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On 10/05/11 15:05, backspace wrote:> On May 10, 3:48 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one s pet theory can


    > >> distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
    > >> A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
    > >> for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of

> >> adaptationism I ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes


    > >> along."
    >
    > >> Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
    > >> that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
    > >> white colour was selected to match their environment.
    >
    > > If the bears were in a black environment but still white, how would
    > > selection explain this?
    >
    > There might be some other function to being white, such as energy
    > conservation (for example, creatures living in lightless environment
    > tend to lose their pigmentation).

As explained elsewhere my question was grammatically correct but
meaningless. You should have asked who did the selecting or made a
decision.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/11/11 1:06 AM 	
Backspace, do you think that all living things have the same amount of
offspring ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/11/11 1:03 AM 	
LOL ! The fact that I was able to give a perfectly cogent answer to your
question and didn't even comment on how difficult it was to parse should
indicate that your question was perfectly meaningful. What are things
getting to, when other people understand what your write better than you
do yourself ?

Selection doesn't require an intelligent or conscious "who" to be doing
the selecting. As explained elsewhere.

Have you ever been on a beach ? They aren't random assemblages, they
tend to have definite longitudinal layers delimiting zones of seaweed,
gravel, different kinds of sand, etc. Something is selecting seaweed for
this strip, fine sand for that place, rocks beyond that zone.
Who is doing the selecting ?

Dissolve salt in water. Leave it to evaporate for a day. Admire the
result. Who designed the pretty crystals ?
How about if you see the same pretty crystals on a beach ? Who did the
designing or selecting ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/11/11 1:24 AM 	

That said, when talking about "who" in a non-conscious, mechanistic
context, if you'd paid attention you'd notice that asking "who did the
selecting or made a decision" is EXACTLY what I did. It was the "There
might be some other function to being white" bit. "such as conservation"
= energy efficient creatures reproduce more, so the requirement for
energy efficiency did the selecting.
All the other possibilities involved circumstances in which the trait
would arise without selection applying to it directly, so technically
they're not "explained by selection" but selection is one part of the
theory of evolution, not the whole thing.

As, now that I think of it, explained elsewhere.

    >
    > Have you ever been on a beach ? They aren't random assemblages, they
    > tend to have definite longitudinal layers delimiting zones of seaweed,
    > gravel, different kinds of sand, etc. Something is selecting seaweed for
    > this strip, fine sand for that place, rocks beyond that zone.
    > Who is doing the selecting ?
    >
    > Dissolve salt in water. Leave it to evaporate for a day. Admire the
    > result. Who designed the pretty crystals ?
    > How about if you see the same pretty crystals on a beach ? Who did the
    > designing or selecting ?
    >

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/11/11 6:14 AM 	

    On May 11, 10:03 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > (2011/05/11 16:18), backspace wrote:
    > > On May 10, 4:20 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    > >> On 10/05/11 15:05, backspace wrote:>  On May 10, 3:48 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    > >>>> I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one s pet theory can
    > >>>> distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
    > >>>> A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
    > >>>> for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of
    > >>>> adaptationism I ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes
    > >>>> along."
    >
    > >>>> Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
    > >>>> that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
    > >>>> white colour was selected to match their environment.
    >
    > >>> If the bears were in a black environment but still white, how would
    > >>> selection explain this?
    >
    > >> There might be some other function to being white, such as energy
    > >> conservation (for example, creatures living in lightless environment
    > >> tend to lose their pigmentation).
    >
    > > As explained elsewhere my question was grammatically correct but
    > > meaningless. You should have asked who did the selecting or made a
    > > decision.
    >


    > Selection doesn't require an intelligent or conscious "who" to be doing
    > the selecting. As explained elsewhere.

The word the selection of the process of making a selection?


> The beach aren't random assemblages, they


    > tend to have definite longitudinal layers delimiting zones of seaweed,
    > gravel, different kinds of sand, etc.

Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
have two options.
1)  A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
the wind- random pattern.
2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
to form a wall represents a design idea.

The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
represents only themselves.


    > Something is selecting seaweed for
    > this strip, fine sand for that place, rocks beyond that zone.
    > Who is doing the selecting ?

Depends, are you using selection in the sense of 1)random pattern  or
2)specified pattern?


    > Dissolve salt in water. Leave it to evaporate for a day. Admire the

> result. Who designed the crystals ?

Do the crystals represent themselves or something else, is there an
encoding decoding mechanism.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/11/11 6:17 AM 	

    On May 11, 10:24 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > All the other possibilities involved circumstances in which the trait
    > would arise without selection applying to it directly, so technically
    > they're not "explained by selection" but selection is one part of the
    > theory of evolution, not the whole thing.

Your paragraph is correct grammar but like 'Julio cranks his wooden
cheese' makes no sense.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Randy C 	5/11/11 6:26 AM 	

    > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
    > have two options.
    > 1)  A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
    > the wind- random pattern.
    > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
    > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
    > to form a wall represents a design idea.

    > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
    > represents only themselves.

There are actually 3 options.  The third one being where there is no
way of telling whether or not something shows an intended “design
idea” or not.

The web page at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4034787.stm shows a picture
of a piece of toast in which some people see an image of the Virgin
Mary (which would be a “design idea”).  Someone paid $28,000 for that
piece of toast.

Does the toast have a “design idea” in it or not?

Why aren’t there any tools that can help us out in determining whether
there is or isn’t?

I’m sure that there are people who can see a “design idea” in a random
collection of bricks assembled into a wall while others won’t see that
“design idea”.

Why aren’t there any tools that can help us out in determining whether
there is or isn’t?

The concept of “specified complexity” wouldn’t help in either case.
Clearly “specified complexity” is a useless fraud.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/11/11 6:38 AM 	
Because "your paragraph is correct grammar" makes so MUCH sense.

You asked how one could explain a white bear in a black environment
using selection. I gave an example of how this could be done. I then
gave a few examples of how one could explain a white bear in a black
environment that DIDN'T use selection, but resorted to other mechanisms
included in the theory of evolution.

This meant the latter examples were technically not answering your
question, but given the larger conversation is about the theory of
evolution, and natural selection is just one mechanisms among many that
are included in the theory of evolution, those answers were still
relevant to your question.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Arkalen 	5/11/11 6:34 AM 	

We talked about this before, I don't think you responded. The
assemblages on the beach represent the regularity of the tides, the
comparative density of different substances, their chemical properties,
the amount of drag they have in water...

Except of course things only "represent" things in the mind of the
beholder so I fail to see how asserting that some things represent
something and others represent something else says anything about who or
what they were designed by.

    >
    >
    >> Something is selecting seaweed for
    >> this strip, fine sand for that place, rocks beyond that zone.
    >> Who is doing the selecting ?
    >
    > Depends, are you using selection in the sense of 1)random pattern  or
    > 2)specified pattern?

Well, it's a false and meaningless dichotomy so it doesn't matter. But
in keeping with my answer above I'll say : specified pattern.


    >
    >> Dissolve salt in water. Leave it to evaporate for a day. Admire the
    >> result. Who designed the crystals ?
    >
    > Do the crystals represent themselves or something else, is there an
    > encoding decoding mechanism.
    >

Absolutely. If you'd paid attention in chemistry (did you study
chemistry?) you'd know that a crystal's shape represents the stacking
properties of the element or molecule that it's composed of. The
encoding mechanism is the quantum mechanical laws that determine how
sodium and chlorine ions interact with each other and in water. The
decoding mechanism is the shape-detecting module of our brain that makes
us go "oooh, look at the square crystals !".

That is, of course, insofar as the words "represent", "encode" or
"decode" apply here, which they do only in the most metaphorical and
abstract of senses.

Your turn. What does an ant represent ? What is the encoding decoding
mechanism ?

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	backspace 	5/11/11 7:17 AM 	

    On May 11, 3:26 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
    > > have two options.
    > > 1)  A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
    > > the wind- random pattern.
    > > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
    > > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
    > > to form a wall represents a design idea.
    > > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
    > > represents only themselves.
    >

    > There are actually 3 options.  The third one being where there is no
    > way of telling whether or not something shows an intended “design
    > idea” or not.

The third option is self-defeating, for it means that you inherently
have no way of telling what you just wrote is itself designed or not.
Remember Godels theorem which states: Anything that is logical will be
within a circle, needing something outside of the circle to explain
it. Draw a circle around all the trillions of possible universes, you
still need something outside the circle to explain it. The universe is
logical , thus Godels theorem applies to because it applies to
anything that is logical. Draw a circle around a bridge, something
outside the bridge is needed to explain the bridge. Draw a circle
around the PID algorithms guiding a tiger's jump over a tream:
Something outside of the tiger itself is needed to explain the control
algorithms and feedback loop between eyes, brain and muscles , just
like a robot engineer is needed to explain they Japanese walking
robot.

What you are actually asking of me is to provide you with some way of
proof beyond all doubt that God exists. Godels theorem showed that
this isn't possible within our axiomatic assumptions. The obvious
thing is to ask God himself in what way has he revealed himself to us.
That man is Jesus Christ , who as God in the flesh said I am
Life(biology) and Truth personified, he who believes in me shall never
die.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Randy C 	5/11/11 8:30 AM 	

    > > > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
    > > > have two options.
    > > > 1)  A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
    > > > the wind- random pattern.
    > > > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
    > > > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
    > > > to form a wall represents a design idea.
    > > > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
    > > > represents only themselves.

    > > There are actually 3 options.  The third one being where there is no
    > > way of telling whether or not something shows an intended “design
    > > idea” or not.

    > The third option is self-defeating, for it means that you inherently
    > have no way of telling what you just wrote is itself designed or not.

But there IS no way of telling.

    > Remember Godels theorem which states: Anything that is logical will be
    > within a circle, needing something outside of the circle to explain
    > it. Draw a circle around all the trillions of possible universes, you
    > still need something outside the circle to explain it. The universe is
    > logical , thus Godels theorem applies to because it applies to
    > anything that is logical. Draw a circle around a bridge, something
    > outside the bridge is needed to explain the bridge. Draw a circle
    > around the PID algorithms guiding a tiger's jump over a tream:
    > Something outside of the tiger itself is needed to explain the control
    > algorithms and feedback loop between eyes, brain and muscles , just
    > like a robot engineer is needed to explain they Japanese walking
    > robot.

    > What you are actually asking of me is to provide you with some way of
    > proof beyond all doubt that God exists. Godels theorem showed that
    > this isn't possible within our axiomatic assumptions. The obvious
    > thing is to ask God himself in what way has he revealed himself to us.
    > That man is Jesus Christ , who as God in the flesh said I am
    > Life(biology) and Truth personified, he who believes in me shall never
    > die.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.  (Translation - many words saying nothing.)

If, in fact, Specified complexity is a useful tool, show us.  Show how
you would apply it to the picture of the Virgin Mary in toast.  Or
apply it to the Face on Mars.  If it is a useful tool, you should be
able to do an analysis and come back with some number.  You might find
out:

There is a 14% probability that the face in the toast was
intelligently designed.

Or come up with a different number.

The ONLY thing ID advocates can provide are theoretical examples.  But
when opportunities arise where they could apply their algorithms -
NOTHING HAPPENS.

You actually mentioned recognizing patterns in bricks.  The web page
at http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-2144623/stock-photo-random-colored-brick-pattern
shows supposedly ra andom brick pattern.  It's conceivable that the
person who laid the bricks actually didn't do so randomly but instead
had some sort of intelligently designed pattern in mind.  Since this
is PRECISELY an application of "Specified Complexity" that YOU
suggested, please describe for us the process that you would use to
determine if this pattern was random or intelligently designed.

You can't do that can you?

Why not?

Because there is NO such process.  SC is nothing but a useless fraud.
It's all theory, but impossible to apply to anything in real life.

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	5/11/11 9:54 AM 	

    On May 10, 10:20 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On 10/05/11 15:05, backspace wrote:> On May 10, 3:48 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one s pet theory can
    > >> distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
    > >> A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
    > >> for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of
    > >> adaptationism I ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes
    > >> along."
    >
    > >> Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
    > >> that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
    > >> white colour was selected to match their environment.
    >
    > > If the bears were in a black environment but still white, how would
    > > selection explain this?

It would tell us that some other feature of the bears was currently
more important to their reproductive success than matching the color
of their environment is.  That does not mean that *when* or *if*
mutation produces a pigmented bear that that feature will not spread
in the environment.

BTW, one of the neatest demonstrations of natural selection is
background color matching.  There are desert rodent species who are
agouti in coloration, matching the brownish sands of most of the
desert.  This is advantageous because predation from above (hawks) is
a strong selective pressure.  But in the desert there are "islands" of
black sand around isolated volcanic basalts.  In these islands, being
agouti makes you stand out and, thus, these islands would have many
fewer rodents (they can still live there because some still can
survive by other means such as hiding during daytime hours).  Not
surprisingly, in these islands melanic (dark) variants have a
selective advantage.  And most dark sand "islands" have such melanic
variants as the main type of rodent.  And, because there is more than
one way to be melanic, different islands often have different
independent causes for their melanic variation.


    >
    > There might be some other function to being white, such as energy
    > conservation (for example, creatures living in lightless environment

    > tend to lose their pigmentation). Or the trait "being white" might be
    > tied to some other trait that's selected for. Or it could be random
    > drift; lack of hair pigmentation is hardly a complex trait (indeed
    > random drift is one possible explanation for why creatures living in
    > lightless environments tend to lose their pigmentation). Or there could
    > be a barrier to evolving something other than a white colour, for
    > example they could be polar bears that moved to a black environment too
    > recently to have evolved the appropriate colouring.

Or it could be that chance has yet to produce a melanic variant (or
that previous mutation to the white involves changes that are hard to
reverse).  Or it could be that, for bears, color makes little or no
difference in reproductive success (they may be entirely vegetarian,
and thus do not have to have camouflage to attack prey and also have
no natural top predator to attack them; or could have a poisonous or
noxious flesh or other type of defense that they want to advertise,
like skunks).

    > And if there was some context in which NONE of these explanation work ?
    > Why, the theory of evolution would be in something of a pickle now
    > wouldn't it ! And if rocks fell up you can bet we'd be having doubts on
    > the theory of gravity, too. But it so happens that rocks fall down and

> that white bears do, in fact, live in a white environment.

Polar bears are not vegetarian and being able to sneak up on or hide
from their prey is rather important to their nutrition and thus
reproductive success.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	hersheyh 	5/11/11 9:58 AM 	

    On May 11, 9:14 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 11, 10:03 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

> > (2011/05/11 16:18), backspace wrote:
> > > On May 10, 4:20 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:


    > > >> On 10/05/11 15:05, backspace wrote:>  On May 10, 3:48 pm, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
    > > >>>> I mean, look at this : "The crucial test is whether one s pet theory can
    > > >>>> distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when
    > > >>>> A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or
    > > >>>> for matching their environment? Search me; and search any kind of
    > > >>>> adaptationism I ve heard of. Nor am I holding my breath till one comes
    > > >>>> along."
    >
    > > >>>> Polar bears are extremely like other bears, the main difference being
    > > >>>> that they live in a white environment. This STRONGLY suggests that their
    > > >>>> white colour was selected to match their environment.
    >
    > > >>> If the bears were in a black environment but still white, how would
    > > >>> selection explain this?
    >

    > > >> There might be some other function to being white, such as energy
    > > >> conservation (for example, creatures living in lightless environment
    > > >> tend to lose their pigmentation).
    >

    > > > As explained elsewhere my question was grammatically correct but
    > > > meaningless. You should have asked who did the selecting or made a
    > > > decision.
    >
    > > Selection doesn't require an intelligent or conscious "who" to be doing
    > > the selecting. As explained elsewhere.
    >
    > The word the selection of the process of making a selection?
    >
    > > The beach aren't random assemblages, they
    > > tend to have definite longitudinal layers delimiting zones of seaweed,
    > > gravel, different kinds of sand, etc.
    >

    > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
    > have two options.
    > 1)  A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
    > the wind- random pattern.
    > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
    > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
    > to form a wall represents a design idea.
    >
    > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
    > represents only themselves.

The assemblages on the beach are NOT random.  Different sized sand,
for example, is distributed in a regular and simple pattern by the
force of the tides.  Seaweed on the beach always is marking the
position of the most recent high tide.


    >
    > > Something is selecting seaweed for
    > > this strip, fine sand for that place, rocks beyond that zone.
    > > Who is doing the selecting ?
    >
    > Depends, are you using selection in the sense of 1)random pattern  or
    > 2)specified pattern?

In the "what caused it" sense rather than the "who caused it" sense.


    >
    > > Dissolve salt in water. Leave it to evaporate for a day. Admire the
    > > result. Who designed the crystals ?
    >
    > Do the crystals represent themselves or something else, is there an
    > encoding decoding mechanism.


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Kermit 	5/11/11 10:58 AM 	

    On May 11, 6:17 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On May 11, 10:24 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > All the other possibilities involved circumstances in which the trait
    > > would arise without selection applying to it directly, so technically
    > > they're not "explained by selection" but selection is one part of the
    > > theory of evolution, not the whole thing.
    >
    > Your paragraph is correct grammar but like 'Julio cranks his wooden
    > cheese' makes no sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense to me. *You are the one who
frequently says that "words have no meaning". Most English speakers
would have no trouble understanding Arkalen's post. He listed, off the
top of his head, several potential explanations for your hypothetical
situation, but most of them were not expressions of natural selection.
Indeed, we have known from the days of Darwin that not all
characteristics are explained by  natural selection. And we have
learned a great deal in 170 years.

You have trouble with several concepts. One is that the meaning of a
word is the one most people (at least in a particular context) assign
to it. Another is that word definitions are not typically assigned in
the beginning of its usage by an authority. There is no fixed usage;
it changes over time. Yet another is that words often have multiple
definitions - not even necessarily related. Really; this should be
understood by ten year-olds.

Kermit

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Mark Isaak 	5/11/11 12:55 PM 	

    On Wed, 11 May 2011 06:14:47 -0700, backspace wrote:

    > On May 11, 10:03 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> [...]


    >> The beach aren't random assemblages, they tend to have definite
    >> longitudinal layers delimiting zones of seaweed, gravel, different
    >> kinds of sand, etc.
    >
    > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only have
    > two options.
    > 1)  A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
    > the wind- random pattern.
    > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
    > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
    > to form a wall represents a design idea.
    >
    > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
    > represents only themselves.

The leaves blowing in the wind are not random.  There are some areas
where the leaves will accumulate and others which will remain swept
clean.  Some kinds of leaves will consistently lie underneath other
kinds.  If you investigate, you can find patterns that will let you
predict where other leaves are likely to land.

So the leaves represent only themselves but are still not random.
Who arranges them?  Or is "who" the wrong term?

-- 
 Mark Isaak          eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
 honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
 pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume


Re: Does random mean non-directed 	James Beck 	5/11/11 5:07 PM 	

    On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Randy C
    <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >> > > Lets avoid the usage of random without supporting context. We only
    >> > > have two options.
    >> > > 1)  A pattern that represents only itself, such as leaves blowing in
    >> > > the wind- random pattern.
    >> > > 2) A specified pattern(Dembski specified complexity) that represents
    >> > > something other than itself. A layer of bricks repeating in a pattern
    >> > > to form a wall represents a design idea.
    >> > > The *random* assemblages on the beach like the leaves blowing
    >> > > represents only themselves.
    >

Of course we can. First, we need to see all of the wall. Then we need
to observe cases as the lights flash, pairing color (on/off, perhaps)
and location. Then, we can periodically run the BSI tests for signs
that this is a periodic, deterministic random number generator. If it
fails on any of the criteria, we can run the results against a library
of PRNGs and attempt to identify which one it is, and tag the
designer.

Maybe it's just me, but my experience suggests that the typical
interior designer can't or wouldn't build a 'randomly lighted wall'
but someone clever might defeat our straight numerical tests by using
a CSPRNG. OTOH, we can also look for patterns in the placement of the
"On" brick; human designers evince patterns (like choosing C on
handmade multiple choice tests). If both sets of tests fail to reject
the null, we can always examine the wall closely for a serial number
or manufacturer's mark, or try to find something similar online, go to
the factory and watch an identical wall being made.

In a very nihilistic moment, one might aver that we can't know for
certain that either wall exists, but that doesn't matter much as long
as the lights flash satisfactorily after I think I've turned them on,
and they don't burn down my (potential) house.

Alternatively, we could just capitulate to the designer, enjoy the
pretty lights, and vibrate our chakras. My chakras love to be
vibrated.
[snip]

Re: Does random mean non-directed 	Randy C 	5/12/11 4:31 AM 	

    > >You actually mentioned recognizing patterns in bricks.  The web page

> >athttp://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-2144623/stock-photo-random-colored...


    > >shows supposedly ra andom brick pattern.  It's conceivable that the
    > >person who laid the bricks actually didn't do so randomly but instead
    > >had some sort of intelligently designed pattern in mind.  Since this
    > >is PRECISELY an application of "Specified Complexity" that YOU
    > >suggested, please describe for us the process that you would use to
    > >determine if this pattern was random or intelligently designed.
    >
    > >You can't do that can you?
    >
    > Of course we can. First, we need to see all of the wall. Then we need
    > to observe cases as the lights flash, pairing color (on/off, perhaps)
    > and location. Then, we can periodically run the BSI tests for signs
    > that this is a periodic, deterministic random number generator. If it
    > fails on any of the criteria, we can run the results against a library
    > of PRNGs and attempt to identify which one it is, and tag the
    > designer.

Inability to apply specified complexity noted.

    > Maybe it's just me, but my experience suggests that the typical
    > interior designer can't or wouldn't build a 'randomly lighted wall'
    > but someone clever might defeat our straight numerical tests by using
    > a CSPRNG. OTOH, we can also look for patterns in the placement of the
    > "On" brick; human designers evince patterns (like choosing C on
    > handmade multiple choice tests). If both sets of tests fail to reject
    > the null, we can always examine the wall closely for a serial number
    > or manufacturer's mark, or try to find something similar online, go to
    > the factory and watch an identical wall being made.

Inability to apply specified complexity noted again,

    > In a very nihilistic moment, one might aver that we can't know for
    > certain that either wall exists, but that doesn't matter much as long
    > as the lights flash satisfactorily after I think I've turned them on,
    > and they don't burn down my (potential) house.

Yawn.  Continued inability to apply specified complexity noted.

    > Alternatively, we could just capitulate to the designer, enjoy the
    > pretty lights, and vibrate our chakras. My chakras love to be
    > vibrated.

Thank you for confirming my claim that specified complexity is useless
nonsense.

More topics »

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.