FANDOM


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/557a525aebe1bddb#

Differential reproduction Edit

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html "...."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994)....."

Weiner is incorrect , Darwin never said differential reproductive success.

It was coined by JohnTyndall 1871, he meant the incremental differential increases in attributes. (or was this actually Herbert Spencer ?)

By saying that Darwin didn't use SoF in the first three editions, they leave out that Darwin referred to Spencer as one of the greatest thinkers in history. Another statement floating around the Internet ether is " .... evolution takes place in populations not individuals..." A population is a collection of individuals. (see Fleeming Jenkin on the individual / population issue). Jenkin observed that individual attributes do not propagate into the wider population. Darwin bootstrapped Democritus atomism and acknowledged Jenkin's insight and thus changed individuals to populations, showing how unfalsifiable atomism/evolution is. Because a population is a a collection of individuals and Adaptation doesn't occur individuals, it neither occurs in populations. The 'populations' issue was an attempt to abrogate the actual facts and experimental observations to the Democritus tautology .


sadf Edit

{{{ On Feb 4, 5:38 am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote: > None of these old concerns are relevant to how science operationally > measures NS.

Actually Mr.Science doesn't measure anything, if you mean though that a person measured NS - who is this person and what did he define as a NS? What is really happening here is the same thing going on at Harvard, Yale and at AIG and ICR creationism graduate school: Discuss NS but nobody has defined what a NS is . It is like an Inquisition torture chamber where you are forced to deny the Lord Jesus by saying the Pope is the mediator between man and God.

Everybody has capitulated , everyone has gone just as insane really as the people driven to insanity by Inquisition torture: Either you say Natural Selection or you won't get your degree from Harvard. Like for example been given an assignment to discuss the pros and cons of Evolution theory - what theory? Take medical school as some point you must to do a course on evolution where you are supposed to use NS as though it actually means something or is a proxy for some concept, but nobody can tell you to which concept is being referred to. Doing such a course is thus denying your faith in Christ: It is becoming ever more impossible to a Xtian.

We are dealing with mental torture , with the full might of Bill Dembski, Ken Ham, EU, Harvard, Yale etc . trying to force society to say "reproductive success" , but I can't because I don't know what the concept is. The lord Jesus said that for every idle word man shall speak he shall give account. RS must have a motive behind it as used by the user, I want the motive..... and don't get it because RS is used like one would cast spells in a fantasy role playing game: For its stylistic rhetorical effect, not an actual attempt at being serious.

My dear brother is the Lord Jesus when faced with a challenge to your faith in your 4th year of medical studies, you stand before a choice get your degree or prevent Jesus from removing your name from the book of life.When you presented with a Litmus test where you must "explain" how NS leads to bacterial resistance, you write on that paper: What naturaled and who did the selecting?

You won't get your degree and will be chased away from university but at least your soul will be saved as the angels rejoice that a Xtian didn't deny his faith. Few hundred years ago the Aristotelians burnt our brothers and sisters to death , they are the same Pagans today, same world view as Aristotle: What happens , happens and there fore I can believe anything and do whatever I want. Our milksop laws are preventing them from killing us but they have economic means of sanction, just like the early Xtians lost their jobs on conversion and had to work for themselves. }}}

post 99 emdong Edit

{{{ On Feb 1, 12:55 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rephrase: > 1) Darwin noted that humans make decisions - Truism > 2) in contrast random events take place in nature - Truism (1) implies > (2) > 3) The conclusion is thus that such events can lead to change in any > organism. >

Lets rephrase again: 1) Darwin noted that humans make decisions 2) In contrast events take place which involved no decisions. 3) The conclusion is thus that such events can lead to change in any organism.

Lets rephrase again for tautological essence: 1) Under any and all conditions anything that happens is either the result of a design or pattern. 2) Such designs or patterns can lead to change in any organism.

(1) is a truism and (2) alludes to the same fact as (1) , it says the same thing twice.


}}}

{{{ On Jan 31, 9:19 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 10:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 12:46 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > What occurs in a bacteria lab is that some bacteria die and some live, > > > The mere fact is that bacteria die and live whether or not there is > > > selection. In order for there to be selection, there have to be > > > environmental conditions that favor one phenotype over another, such > > > as the presence of an antibiotic. > > > Howard when you say "..planetary atraction follows an inverse square > > law..." you aren't formulating a new theory but interpreting an > > existing theory.

> What does that have to do with your obviously faulty claim that > natural selection doesn't have any causal relationship to the > environment? Which person's concept with the word term "natural selection" doesn't have a relationship with the environment? (NS isn't a concept but protocol between signal sender and receiver for some agreed apon concept interpreted in some reference frame which in 1859 was Spencer, who in turn interpreted Treviranus. Henry Osborn was interpreting German Greek scholars on Aristotle, with their interpretation. We should compare the classical texts of 1850 on Aristotle with the modern versions to see how views can change. Wilkins accused Osborn of Wig history revisionism, he must motivate for this more clearly by researching the authors who influenced Osborn, Osborn didn't deduce his views in a vacuum.

Wikipedia's entry on NS is an interpretation of some yet to be defined concept because they give no citation for their usage of the word term "natural selection" which like the word term "Ninja Turtles" only means whatever you want to make it mean. Note that such a person can't be Mr.Science - he doesn't exist. A reader back then had Spencer in his left hand, Darwin in his right, reading how the blacks responded to their white masters(preferred race) like "....tail wagging Cocker Spanials..."). From reading Spencer he meant "suitability" with "fitness" - that was his concept. It might not be the concept today of some authors but that is how Darwin was read by a reader in 1863 as in the more suitable white people over the blacks. Charles Kingsley for example interpreted Darwin as the "...absolute empire of accident...." which is basically what Aristotle said: What happens, happens and therefore we are the result of accident.

In the Wilkins podcast he said something of Fitness being a mathematical equation (something to that effect). This is incorrect, fitness could be defined between sig send/receiver as the coda for some agreed apon concept, which could by anything including some math equation. But back in 1863 when Kingsley wrote his letter to Maurice he didn't have a math equation in mind with "Fitness" or "suitability", he was seeing the more "suitable" white people dominate the world.

> When I claim that NS involves a causal relationship > between the environment and the organismal phenotype on the metric of > reproductive success, I am saying that that is what Darwin actually > described when he used the term NS. Citations, where did Darwin say RS or where is the passage that such an interpretation can be made. He used the term ToNS 36 times, derive from these passages your view http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/NaturalSelection36Times

> It is, in fact, what biologists before Darwin had noted. Who are they Moodie , Blyth , Malthus, Erasmus, Halloy, Treviranus ect....

> Darwin merely noted that, like artificial (that is, human controlled) selection, selection in the absence of > humans > can and does lead to phenotypic *change* in any organismal > population in the direction of optimal adaptation to their parent's > environment (not perfect or logically best, but optimal after weighing > costs and benefits).

REPHrASE: Darwin noted that, like artificial (that is, human controlled) selection, selection in the absence of humans can lead to change in any organism in the direction of optimal adaptation to their parent's environment (not perfect or logically best, but optimal after weighing costs and benefits).

REPHrASE: Darwin noted that, like human controlled selection(1), selection(2) in the absence of no volition can lead to change in any organism in the direction of optimal adap tation to their parent's environment

Selection(1) is used in the design sense and Selection(2) in the pattern sense.

REPHrASE: Darwin noted that humans make decisions, in contrast nature makes a "selection"(pattern sense) which can lead to change in any organism.

REPHrASE: 1) Darwin noted that humans make decisions - Truism 2) in contrast random events take place in nature - Truism (1) implies (2) 3) The conclusion is thus that such events can lead to change in any organism.

This is a Truism(1) followed by a semi-confused cause-effect inversion mixed with an element of truthiness and finally(3) a non-sequitur.

REPHrASE: rephrase again to eliminate the first Truism. 1) Random events take place in nature - Truism, what happens , happens 3) Therefore such events can lead to change in any organism. - non-sequitur.

Your conclusion might be true but doesn't follow logically from the truism.





>To the extent that the population has the > necessary variation, just as in artificial selection. In relatively > constant environments, this observable process leads to the > *appearance* of stasis. In non-constant or changing environments, > this observable process leads to change and speciation. > > > In every single established theory following a > > process where the formulator provided a description that at very least > > was well reasoned (not science - nobody knows what that word means) , > > we know who this person was - without exception. > > Your point? Other than to directly point out your total inability to > understand either science or language? Darwin wrote books on the > process. Other scientists too numerous to mention have commented on > and added to our understanding of the process. Science does not > produce words fixed on stone tablets that cannot change and get > elaborated in meaning as we learn more. But then, neither does common > English. Look up the original meaning of 'gift' (and the current > meaning of the German 'giftig'). > > > What many do today such as Wilkins is actually inventing their own > > theories , whole new conceptualizations but are to modest to announce > > that they have a brand new idea because of the possible peer pressure > > or non-favorable reception, especially by those who would decide on > > tenure positions. > > Then your argument is with him. > > > Wilkins said of Dawkins "....if you read his books > > you are guaranteed to get it wrong...." which didn't go down very well > > with Myers , leading to Wilkins leaving Scienceblogs. Both Dawkins and > > Wilkins says "selection" , but as a single word it is a proxy for > > conflicting viewpoints when used by either user: They are not > > neccessarily talking about the same thing. All language , sentences, > > phrases and words either conveys the concept of a patter or a design > > and a clear cut distinction between these two. The sentence "Outside > > was formed a selection of rocks" means what? > > In this context, 'selection' means 'variety'. Do you disagree? > > > Without knowing who says > > so we can't infer whether "selection" is used in the pattern or design > > sense. If a tornado hit a mountain it would be a "pattern", but if > > John selected the rocks it would be a "design". > > Not unless John 'formed' or made the rocks. And, in this context, the > meaning of 'selection' would still be 'variety'. > > > Not being able to > > distinguish between patterns or designs indicates a mental illness. Elsewhere you wrote: "... design is subset of pattern...." , you > > specifically left the "a" out , and refused to explain why, > > Can't you figure it out from context? All 'design' is a subset of all > 'pattern'; the reverse is not true. Just observing a 'pattern' tells > you nothing about whether that 'pattern' was 'designed'. It could be > a 'natural' pattern that forms without design, such as crystals or > river meanders. Or it could be a pattern only in your mind, as in the > constellations. I can't help you if you don't even understand the > concept of 'subset'. > > > Knowing what you believe about the "pattern-design" distinction helps > > us in interpreting what you say, something which can't be deduced form > > the sentence itself. > > > What one needs to get clarity about what you are writing Howard, are > > you interpreting various authors or are you actually formulating your > > own theory? > > Neither. I am explaining current meaning of the community of people > who understand things you do not. > > > Lets presume you are interpreting Darwin who wrote to > > Wallace that he made a mistake with his choice of "selection" because > > it anthromorphosizes nature and he should have used "preservation" to > > formulate the concepts surrounding the Malthusian struggle for > > existence. > > (The struggle for existence is a False Dichotomy and unfalsifiable, it > > doesn't explain how complex chemical reactions results in control > > algorithms or whether the algorithms are even dependent of the > > chemical processes or the transition matrix that maps polypeptide > > space into frog-space.) > > > Thus lets replace every instance of "selection" by "preservation" > > because that was the intent of Darwin. > > Fine. But you must also add the word *differential* to preservation, > just as one implies differential effects by using the term > "selection". Replacing "selection" with "differential preservation" > is not quite as good as replacing it with "differential reproductive > success" because 'differential preservation' is not always the effect > of "natural selection". Differential reproductive success, OTOH, is > the correct metric for measuring selection. > > > Perhaps you would say that you > > are not dealing with Darwin, but who then? > > The accumulated wisdom and understanding of the current community of > biologists. > > > No conclusion can then be > > inferred because we wouldn't know to what concept you would be > > referring to. It could for example be a brand new theory that you > > personally crafted but haven't shared yet. A reader reading Dawkins on > > how Darwin was the greatest scientist that ever lived , who has deeply > > immersed himself in Dawkins view might then come to an erroneous > > conclusion when reading your post. > > > The insistance on knowing whose concept with "selection" we are > > referring to isn't unreasonable or meant to be disingenious, but > > rooted in a Biblical world view where who said what when and where > > defines the force of the sentence. > > Science, as a discipline, is uninterested in magical word usage and > who said what when and where. It is only interested in whether or not > its ideas (not sentences or words) are consistent with empirical > reality. > > > > > Note that I said "sentence" not > > "word" , with "selection,preservation,survival,random" we are dealing > > with a word, a tool or device , a mechanism or means for communicating > > whatever concept the wielder of the tool wishes it to be: No single > > true pattern or design can be associated with it. Even the word > > "random" when used in a sentence can actually be used by the user to > > communicate design or intent. For example when you do a probability > > sample by "selecting at random" any marble from either of ten bags > > filled with marbles , there was an intentional decision being made > > at random not a completely "random" occurence. Which is why > > the English language is such huge fun, it can be used to say one thing > > but mean something completely different. > > "By the process of selection this organism evolved" - Selection what? > > Or as one professor wrote on his bio:"....I study selection...." - > > What selection? Wilkins says he is in the "Selectionist camp" , but if > > we read Darwin this should be "I am in the Preservationist > > camp"..... depends though if Wilkins is interpreting himself or > > another person or Darwin we can't come to any conclusion as to his > > work: It isn't even wrong. > > Why should *anyone* give a flying f*** wrt your silly word games? > > > > > Elsewhere Wilkins wrote that the distinction between AS and NS is > > incorrect it should just be selection(whatever this is supposed to > > mean). Lets combine this view with what some unknown author on > > Wikipedia with his yet to be defined concept with NS between 2007 and2008 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259... > > > "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable > > traits become more common in successive generations of a population of > > reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less > > common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...." wrote > > with what Darwin wrote that he meant "natural preservation" and > > replace "natural selection" with just "preservation": > > > rephrased wikipedia quote: > > Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become > > more common .... and unfavorable ....traits become less common.... > > > rephrase again: > > Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become > > more preserved .... and unfavorable ....traits become less > > preserved.... > > > How must we interpret this in terms of Darwin, Wilkins and some > > unknown author. Was "preservation" used in the pattern or design sense > > and what would this mean in terms of Howards "....design is subset of > > pattern....".


}}}

ns acts Edit

ies remain constant, none gets

lklklk Edit

JohnWilkinsOnDescentWithModification - asa gray

stawtollogy Edit

{{{ On Jan 31, 11:59 am, Burkhard wrote: > > "...favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable > > ones to be destroyed.... > > Can anybody think of a way to disprove this?

> Yes, and I have given you several possible observations that would it > disprove it on numerous occasions. One would be if we observed that > all species remain constant, none gets destoyed or goes extinct, > ever.

>If we observed this ............................

But this isn't the observation, we observe that species have gone extinct like the dinosaurs, which Darwin gave the reason for saying they were "less improved" and Gould saying the Dinosaurs were "extinction prone". If the observation was that nothing ever had gone extinct then Darwin might have said something different, your attemp at refuting Darwin's tautololgy I will now formally define as a "counter-straw-tology".

Darwin was "struck" as to why the species died: They were unfavourable! But his only metric for unfavorability was that they are dead, he says the same thing twice making his conclusion a non-sequitur. }}}

asdf Edit

{{{ On Jan 29, 9:26 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Who decided that DWM , ToE and a single word Evolution is referring to > what concept?

> Why are the Neo-Aristotelians ruling Wikipedia trying to rewrite > history and remove complete phrases and their intended concept as > understood back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification is a crucial part of what shaped Darwin's thought processes as he absorbed and formulated the various inputs from authors such as Halloy.

"...Many objections may be advanced against the theory of *descent with modification through natural selection*. The more complex organs have been perfected, by the accumulation variations, each good for the individual possessor. All parts of the organisation offer, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of profitable deviations of structure. Gradations in the state of perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed....."

"....In 1846 the veteran geologist M. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published in an excellent, though short paper ('Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy. Bruxelles,' tom. xiii. p. 581), his opinion that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification, than that they have been separately created: the author first promulgated this opinion in 1831.[1]....'

And it was this paper in 1846 that Darwin read, later writing to Asa Gray how he discovered Descent with Modification while riding in a wagon. He probably read the paper while riding, which is what the Neo-Lucretians at Wikipedia is censoring by redirecting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification to the word "Evolution" , a word that could made to mean anything one wishes it to mean.

Note that those of us that are YEC ,we are actually Evolutionists, we believe in progress and our higher destiny. The Neo-Democritians have hijacked our language and culture redefining the very meaning of language itself.

Evolution, evolutionary , modification, selection, hope , will , volition - this is our language, the Neo-Spencerites must go and invent their own terms not use words not available to them given their premises. }}}


MUST REPLY TO POST 88 BY HOWRD Edit

{{{ Howard when you say "..planetary atraction follows an inverse square law..." you aren't formulating a new theory but interpreting an existing theory. In every single established theory following a process where the formulator provided a description that at very least was well reasoned(not science - nobody knows what that word means) , we know who this person was - without exception.

What many do today such as Wilkins is actually inventing their own theories , whole new conceptualizations but are to modest to announce that they have brand new idea because of the possible peer pressure or non-favorable reception, especially by those who would decide on tenure positions. Wilkins said of Dawkins "....if you read his books you are guaranteed to get it wrong...." which didn't go down very well with Myers , leading to Wilkins leaving Scienceblogs. Both Dawkins and Wilkins says "selection" , but as a single word it is a proxy for conflicting viewpoints when used by either user: They are not neccessarily talking about the same thing. All language , sentences, phrases and words either conveys the concept of a patter or a design and a clear cut distinction between these two. The sentence "Outside was formed a selection of rocks" means what? Without knowing who says so we can't infer whether "selection" is used in the pattern or design sense. If a tornado hit a mountain it would be a "pattern", but if John selected the rocks it would be a "design". Not being able to distinguish between patterns or designs indicates a mental illness. Elsewhere you wrote: "... design is subset of pattern...." , you specifically left the "a" out , and refused to explain why, Knowing what you believe about the "pattern-design" distinction helps us in interpreting what you say, something which can't be deduced form the sentence itself.

What one needs to get clarity about what you are writing Howard, are you interpreting various authors or are you actually formulating your own theory? Lets presume you are interpreting Darwin who wrote to Wallace that he made a mistake with his choice of "selection" because it anthromorphosizes nature and he should have used "preservation" to formulate the concepts surrounding the Malthusian struggle for existence. (The struggle for existence is a False Dichotomy and unfalsifiable, it doesn't explain how complex chemical reactions results in control algorithms or whether the algorithms are even dependent of the chemical processes or the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog-space.)

Thus lets replace every instance of "selection" by "preservation" because that was the intent of Darwin. Perhaps you would say that you are not dealing with Darwin, but who then? No conclusion can then be inferred because we wouldn't know to what concept you would be referring to. It could for example be a brand new theory that you personally crafted but haven't shared yet. A reader reading Dawkins on how Darwin was the greatest scientist that ever lived , who has deeply immersed himself in Dawkins view might then come to an erroneous conclusion when reading your post.

The insistance on knowing whose concept with "selection" we are referring to isn't unreasonable or meant to be disingenious, but rooted in a Biblical world view where who said what when and where defines the force of the sentence. Note that I said "sentence" not "word" , with "selection,preservation,survival,random" we are dealing with a word, a tool or device , a mechanism or means for communicating whatever concept the wielder of the tool wishes it to be: No single true pattern or design can be associated with it. Even the word "random" when used in a sentence can actually be used by the user to communicate design or intent. For example when you do a probability sample by "selecting at random" any marble from either of ten bags filled with marbles , there was an intentional decision being made at random not a completely "random" occurence. Which is why the English language is such huge fun, it can be used to say one thing but mean something completely different. "By the process of selection this organism evolved" - Selection what? Or as one professor wrote on his bio:"....I study selection...." - What selection? Wilkins says he is in the "Selectionist camp" , but if we read Darwin this should be "I am in the Preservationist camp"..... depends though if Wilkins is interpreting himself or another person or Darwin we can't come to any conclusion as to his work: It isn't even wrong.

Elsewhere Wilkins wrote that the distinction between AS and NS is incorrect it should just be selection(whatever this is supposed to mean). Lets combine this view with what some unknown author on Wikipedia with his yet to be defined concept with NS between 2007 and 2008 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...." wrote with what Darwin wrote that he meant "natural preservation" and replace "natural selection" with just "preservation":

rephrased wikipedia quote: Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become more common .... and unfavorable ....traits become less common....

rephrase again: Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become more preserved .... and unfavorable ....traits become less preserved....


How must we interpret this in terms of Darwin, Wilkins and some unknown author. Was "preservation" used in the pattern or design sense and what would this mean in terms of Howards "....design is subset of pattern....".

}}}



On Jan 28, 3:24 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 5:47 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > The *basic* idea of NS is quite simple and empirically observable by > > basic experiments that can be done in a bacteria lab. The subtle > > meanings require reading more widely and deeply than you seem capable > > of.

> What occurs in a bacteria lab is that some bacteria die and some live, What a crappy inadequate description! Of course, I know that you do that intentionally.

The mere fact is that bacteria die and live whether or not there is selection. In order for there to be selection, there have to be environmental conditions that favor one phenotype over another, such as the presence of an antibiotic. [It has been experimentally observed that the environmental condition is selecting among pre- existing variants rather than generating such variants itself -- which would be Lamarckian.]



> the reason we are told is that the favorable bacteria lived because > it was favorable, the dead one because it wasn't favorable.

No. The reason the favorable bacteria survive is because they have a phenotype (and a genotype) that favors *their* growth over that of the bacteria that have a different phenotype in the specified environment.




> This is > Aristotle extended but it doesn't tell us the actual reason the > bacteria died.

If you are talking about selection in the lab, we do know. In this case, the bacteria that die were sensitive to the antibiotic and those that survived were resistant to it. Genetically resistant. Because of spontaneous mutations that occurred prior to the addition of the antibiotic.


If you are talking about preservation in the lab, we do know. In this case, the bacteria that die were sensitive to the antibiotic and those that survived were resistant to it. Genetically resistant. Because of spontaneous mutations that occurred prior to the addition of the antibiotic.



> At the most fundamental level we are dealing with a > cause effect inversion. Only in your stupid description of non-selection. If there is an the absence of selection, the two different phenotypes would drift in frequency.


rephrase: Only in your description of non-preservation. If there is an absence of preservation, the organisms descendants would reproduce in unpredictable ways.

}}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Jan 29, 12:10 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote: > > In other words you don't know who defined what a "differential > > reproductive success" is.

> You don't know that. I'm just not bothering to answer your question.

This seems to be a recurring problem in the Neo-Empedoclian (not evolutionary) community, some sort of a trade secret, forever talking about Theory of Evolutions but never telling us what exactly is this theory. Even Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy which is why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_evolution redirects to Evolution? How could one single word be a theory. Also noted is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution .

Who decided that DWM , ToE and a single word Evolution is referring to what concept?

Why are the Neo-Aristotelians ruling Wikipedia trying to rewrite history and remove complete phrases and their intended concept as understood back then.

}}}


quest Edit

{{{ On Jan 28, 8:44 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > And what do the purported words of a religious teacher have to do with > science?

Perhaps nothing but that would depend what you mean with Science, probably Materialism in which case you restated a truism as a rhetorical question because materialism is defined as not being spiritual.

}}}

owen Edit

{{{ On Jan 28, 8:53 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wow. This boy Darwin must have been one of the most > eclectic, widely-read, scholarly polymaths in the entire > history of Western thought, to have accessed, read, > digested, synthesized, and distilled this vast forest > of materials into one persuasive and easily readable > work.

That's basically what he did, angering many people in the process such as Professor Owen, Matthews because he took what they wrote and then said He made some profound discovery , he didn't but reformulated their core tautologies intermixed with the Malthusian tale about how organisms struggle for survival. A story which confuses cause with effect.

Did you know what Treviranus originated the term "SoF" and not Spencer.


> His was evidently a far more advanced intellect > than anyone has realized, at least until you put this list > together. He was a fraud and plagiarist, he collected the then known concepts surrounding Transmutation and cast the bulk as his own inventions. }}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Jan 28, 5:34 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Evolution happens, and we know at least some of the mechanisms for it. Depends what you mean by evolution: How did lifeless chemical create life? If this doesn't matter who says so. Note that wouldn't be Mr. Evolution - he doesn't exist.

> Every generation has inheritable variants. Truism

> The helpful variations tend to spread thru the population, and the detrimental ones > tend to disappear. Which is how Darwin interpreted Aristotle and how John Tyndall interpreted Democritus.

> This leads to great change over time. And then follows the non-sequitur, your preceding tautology makes any conclusion from such not a logical deduction. You might be correct but not because of the argumentation scheme. }}}


ns Edit

{{{ On Jan 28, 4:40 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >He did, he said they were "preserved because they weren't perishable"

> which has nothing to do with natural selection

Which depends what you define as a NS..... as noted no term or sentence has a single true meaning, NS or "natural means of selection" back then , Darwin and Matthew meant "...natural means of preservation by the survival of the favorable ones..." which was a reformulation of James Hutton 1794 and Aristotle who in turn rephrased Empedocles. }}}


dar Edit

{{{ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Darwin.27s_theory Darwin's theory "....In 1859, Charles Darwin set out his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined natural selection as the "principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved".[29] The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. As long as there is some variation between them, there will be an inevitable selection of individuals with the most advantageous variations. If the variations are inherited, then differential reproductive success will lead to a progressive evolution of particular populations of a species, and populations that evolve to be sufficiently different eventually become different species.[30]...."

The ref. given is page.5 of OoS http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=20

There is nothing about any "differential reproductive success" , just the usual tautologies about how the strong propagate with their strength defined in terms of their ability to increase and their ability to increase because of their strength - saying the same thing twice.

".... I will then pass on to the variability of species in a state of nature; but I shall, unfortunately, be compelled to treat this subject far too briefly, as it can be treated properly only by giving long catalogues of facts. We shall, however, be enabled to discuss what circumstances are most favourable to variation. In the next chapter the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from their high geometrical powers of increase, will be treated of. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.

This fundamental subject of Natural Selection will be treated at some length in the fourth chapter; and we shall then see how Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life, and induces what I have called Divergence of Character. In the next chapter I shall discuss the complex and little known laws of variation and of correlation of growth. In the four succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or in understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record. In the next chapter I shall consider the geological succession of organic beings throughout time; in the eleventh and twelfth, their geographical distribution throughout space; in the thirteenth, their classification or mutual affinities, both when mature and in an embryonic condition. In the last chapter I shall give a brief recapitulation of the whole work, and a few concluding remarks....."

}}}


kjh Edit

{{{ On Jan 27, 1:27 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Jan 25, 1:58 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html > > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about > > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition > > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations > > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or > > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, > > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............." > > > Where did Darwin say "reproductive success" or "differential > > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ? > > Why are you reading Darwin anyway? You can support your "theory" > without any reference to him, or to the 150 years of science that > followed.

In other words you don't know who defined what a "differential reproductive success" is. Let me ask you a question then " You have a green light " - what does that mean if we don't know who said so?

You have a green light at least is a sentence DRS isn't even a sentence. If we don't know what a sentence means without knowing who uttered the sentence then how could we determine what DRS if we don't know who said so? }}}

howrd Edit

{{{ On Jan 27, 1:39 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I didn't know that hotels had turtle suites. But your argument above > show the fatuity of your problem with the fact that Darwin didn't say > exactly this or that word or phrase. I am using the terms as they are > used in light of modern evidence, not using the exact wording that > Charles Darwin used.

What is the modern evidence or modern explanation for how abstract algorithms are transmitted from egg to chicken as opposed to how Darwin explained this using his concept that he encoded for with the term natural selection? How does a single term "natural selection" explain the signal/noise relationship in cell signaling or the Gecko's ability to stick to surfaces. Or more specific how does Darwin, John Tyndall, Spencer, Osborn, Wallace concept - SoF - explain this.

Darwin used a specific wording to communicate a specific concept: The favorable one was preserved and the non-favorable wasn't preserved, which was the same thing Aristotle told us and Democritus as shown by John Tyndall in 1874 where he championed the great breakthrough in 19th century thinking : Survival of the fittest, which Darwin said was a "better expression". That was their concept, perhaps it isn't yours why then are you using their terminology ?

What is your concept with natural selection and how did you derive the concept because the term "natural selection" has no single true meaning and no single true concept it can be associated with. }}}

howard Edit

{{{


>There are a > number of ways to measure this relative reproductive success.

Begging the question here, you are assuming the term is an accepted agreed apon protocol between signal sender and receiver. As a term DRS could be used as a proxy for any concept defined by any individual: To which person are you referring to. Take the term "ninja turtles", in our cultural context it refers to a pietza eating turtle by the name of Donatello. In Japan though 200 years ago it would be a Ninja hiding in a turtle suite. NT like NS and DRS aren't sentences but terms , used as and encoding mechanism between signal sender and receiver, an agreed apon protocol for some agreed apon concept. What is the concept with DRS and who has this concept because DRS like NS , NT , SoF and "Beer is beer" has no single true meaning

}}}

ljkh Edit

{{{ On Jan 26, 9:14 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > :...Morley (not knowing of Empedocles' hypothesis) speaks of as an > anticipation of a famous modern theory, referring of course to * > Natural Selection.' This is especially valuable because it affords > another conclusive proof that the idea of the ' Survival of the > Fittest ' must > actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ. It > is contained in an imaginary dialogue upon the teleological view of > Nature > between ' Saunderson ' and the ' Professor ' : " ... all the faulty > combinations of matter disappeared, and that those individuals only > survived whose mechanism implied no important misadaptation > (contradiction), and who had the power of supporting and per- > petuating themselves....."

Who was Morley and Saunderson, because their paragraph was reformulated verbatim by Darwin and he labeled it Theory of Evolution as per OoS: "......This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt......"

}}}

do cows have goals Edit

{{{ On Jan 26, 10:06 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > But if a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still > > be a success? For who is what a success, who is this person. > > It would be a success if it increased its reproductive fitness, i.e. > have more viable offspring than the milk producing one. If for > instance beer producing cows would attract the attention of a certain > bipedal parasite that drinks the beer, and in turn feeds the cow and > protects it from predators, this could be a differential advantage > that results in more offspring than that of milk producing cows. It > leaves the problem how to feed that offspring, but if the parasite > takes care of this it could work.

A success is something you achieve on reaching a goal. Do cows have goals? If cowbat had evolved instead of cow from which perspective would this be either a success or failure. Lets presumed nothing evolved ,no animals no humans just blissful unconsciousness , from which perspective would this be a success or failure. }}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Jan 26, 2:46 am, Conan the bacterium <deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Darwin candidly discussed three major objections that could > be raised to his theory, adding that he could only > hope that future discoveries would somehow answer > these objections, because he himself could not. > The mystery of how beneficial changes could persist > without being diluted out of existance was one of > these big three.

Beneficial , "without being diluted out" and "persist" makes the sentence a "truthiness-tautology" . Not exactly tautological but somewhere between a truism and tautology.

rephrase: ".. The mystery of how ... changes could persist without being diluted out ..." The fact that they "persist" implies they aren't being diluted out, making diluted out redundant: rephrase: ".. The mystery of how ... changes could persist ..."

Now we see your sentence is a disguised truism lets rephrase again: "..Changes do persist ..." and therefore my world view is correct. , which is a non-sequitur.

The stile of writing we get from the neo-empedoclians is formulating truisms as tautologies , banal truths and "truthiness-tautologies" in such a way that the overarching thrust can't be disputed . }}}

asdf Edit

{{{ On Jan 25, 10:13 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > backspace wrote: > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html > > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about > > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition > > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations > > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or > > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, > > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............." > > > Where did Darwin say "reproductive success" or "differential > > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ? > > It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists > on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical > syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion.

It matters because like "random mutations" the term surfaced around 1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very few know this.

> His literal words have > no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in the > development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th century writing > and culture. His literal words had a profound effect on the direction mankind took with two world wars, a ongoing culture war in America. But it wasn't his words, he lifted the ideas from Maltus, Mudie, Lucretius, Democritus, Epicurus, Aristotle and Empedocles. Henry Osborne documented how Empedocles was the orginator of the concept of natural selection. Aristotle reformulated Empedocles.

> This is the 21st century and the concepts that he formulated > and their successors are what is important.

It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"

> The way the observable world > fits the structure and its predictions is significant, not whether you think > 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology. Who made what predictions? Only somebody could have made a prediction - who si this person.

> Darwin's words represent one historical formulation of part of the system > and those words do not limit or determine the validity of the theory for > ever and one day. What theory?

> Unless you are a blinkered literalist with no > understanding of the modern system that you imagine that you are attacking.

What is the modern system?

> Try to grow your puling intellect past the 12 year old stage that says "I > found a spelling mistake in your work so all of what you say must be wrong".

What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages , starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of Einstein . }}}


asdf Edit

On Jan 26, 12:24 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn > > in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"

> What's yer point? In which book did Empedocles write about natural > selection acting on a pool of inheritable variation?

Are you using "acting" in the pattern or design sense. This is something I picked up in OoS where Darwin says ".....NS acts...." but he was using "acts" in the pattern sense, no will or volition was involved. In English we have much ambiguity, it is a quirk of the language itself leading to profound confusion.


> Nearly every research paper published covers predictions and results. > Look up any of the several million papers on evolutionary biology > published in the last 150 years.

Which one of them defined what Life is? or what is the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space in Human space.

> > What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages , > > starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused > > into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of > > Einstein .

> No, Empedocles did not do biology, nor did he describe the General > Theory of Relativity. He didn't design automobiles or computer chips, > either. See, we (meaning everybody but you) know more than our > ancestors did 1000 or 1,000,000 years ago. This is because the people > who contribute to civilization learn from those who came before them, > then add art or knowledge themselves. They *build on knowledge. In > this way, knowledge accumulates, and those willing to learn know more > than those in the past. Empedocles and Aristotle made society think in tautological terms, this has for example made it impossible for people to understand bacterial resistance as a cause effect phenomena.

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.