http://laboratoriogene.info/Ciencia_Hoje/Popper1978.pdf Popper wrote:
"...In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of Natural Selection would assert that all organisms, and especially all those highly complex organs whose existence might be interpreted as evidence of design and , in addition, all forms of animal behaviour, have evolved as the result of natural selection, that is, as the result of chance-like inheritable variations, of which the useless ones are weeded out, so that only the useful ones remain ....."
Useful and remain are the dissimilar terms that self-referentially refer to the same fact, saying the same thing twice. If not even Popper could spot a tautology then it is no wonder the rest of society has such difficulty.
Note the many ways of using dissimilar terms to say the same thing twice about the Adaptation premise:
- 1) Favorable attributes are preserved - Wikipedia Natural Selection article version.
- 2) useful ones remain - Popper
- 3) ...leave alive only those genetically immune ..... - Popper
- 3) Perpetuators proliferate - Stanford tautologies Usenet talk.origins thread
- 4) Those constituted were preserved - Aristotle
- 5) Differential reproductive success are another cluster of terms used as proxy for 1-4.
The formulators of these rhetorical tautological sentences have different views on the scale by which attributes were acquired: Spontaneous such as Aristotle or gradual as Darwin had it. Their basic premises is the same.
- 1) Information has a physical dimension only(Adaptation), the contrast to YEC (expression)
- 2) Information is acquired(adaptation) either gradually(Darwin, Miller) or spontaneously(Aristotle) and never expresses a pre-existing attribute.
Note how Darwin lifted Aristotle's tautological proposition, guaranteeing the truth of his proposition(Spontaneous generation) to formulate a different guaranteed proposition from which he derived a different conclusion. Because tautologies guarantee the truth of the proposition, it allows one to come to any arbitrary conclusion. This allows evolutionary theory(Aristotle) to adapt past,present and future, itself to the facts(Genes-Information) like a fog adapts to a mountain.
Template - code Edit
- The best answer IMO that's been given in this thread is that DNA is a template, not a code. It's functionally the same as a stencil - a piece of plastic with a hole in it that forces the paint into a certain pattern on the paper, and that replicates by lying against another piece of plastic so that an identical stencil can be cut out around it. If scientists had named it the "DNA template" from the start, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Ham Nye debate Edit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yQEG7mlTU 2hours , Ken uses literally as dissimilar term for naturally.
Template is a dissimilar term for code.