On Dec 23, 8:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm > > Barry Lynn said: > Well, with a simple sentence you could: random selections which make a > species -- a species more likely to survive are beneficial. That's a > very simple idea and it explains why in fact some species survive and > others do not. > > Was he talking about random natural selection or non-random(directed) > natural selection? > > Note that no where on Wikipedia is non-random defined. It is used > though in the volitional directed sense in many articles such as > clustering illusion.
BL: Well, with a simple sentence you could: random selections which make a species -- a species more likely to survive are beneficial. That's a very simple idea and it explains why in fact some species survive and others do not.
ES: I mean, adaptive differential reproduction is the definition of natural selection. Why is this a problem? Why is this a problem?
DB: Que sera sera. What will happen, will happen. That could not be the locus in which you repose your trust. What will happen, will happen. Big deal.
ES: No, no, no, that's not -- No, adaptive differential reproduction is not "what will happen, will happen." Let me ask another question.
MK: Explain -- why don't you explain what that term means.
ES: Well, I don't know, it may just -- it may not necessarily enlighten our listeners actually because it is technical. But that's the whole point.
DB: It's not technical. It's just means what survives, survives. We know that.
Note what Scott said: ... Well, I don't know ....
This has been my point the last few years around here: nobody knows what we are talking about. The terms ns,drs aren't defined in the current context.
DRS is a term coined by Tyndall and used in his context of the phrase SoF by which he meant the small incremental differential accumulation of new attributes as creatures engage in Darwin's, Matthew's 'natural means of competitive selection, survival,preservation or cultivation.
Wallace used NS as the metaphor for SoF, this doesn't mean NS means SoF . It means he used a term as a metaphor for a phrase in his knowledge context. Scott must formulate a full sentence and then explain why she insists on using Wallace's NS as a metaphor for such.
The reason phlogiston theory isn't used as the metaphor for quantum theory are because quantum theorists aren't trying to make their theories undefined .
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PZ_Myers pointed out is that ... we are no longer dealing with Darwin's theory....... Then why do we keep on insisting on using his terminology?
Thus we need ask ourselves: are evolutionists not perhaps insane?