FANDOM



See HoWard1

asdf Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/9dbfc95ae01d6dbc/d80597307d769dc0#d80597307d769dc0 {{{ On Mar 4, 9:15 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect > >complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally > >artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from > >successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?

> The above is an argument from personal incredulity. Given an appropriate > landscape, stochastic hill climbing searches (variation and selection) > can be highly effective.

Certainly if somebody made a decision by selecting for an outcome. But then again you are using "selection" in the pattern sense? What about people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing that hill. }}}

On Mar 4, 10:42 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > What about > > people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing > > that hill.

> Perhaps you would care to quote from a textbook or manual on breeding > in which the magical difference between those two words is discussed?

Words have no meaning. Do you know what is the difference between a design and pattern and that any word even "non-random" can be used to symbolically represent chance and not directed, as in "..... natural selection is non-random...."

Many authors say this but what they mean is "..... natural selection shall forever be absolute empire of accident, for strategic reasons, we are just using non-random but we don't mean directed...."

Many time i have asked "do you mean directed with non-random" and the answer is always no. But either your house built itself or it was made. Either a manufacturing plant was directed or it made itself.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/44322b41d10ecfce/21056ae9baa4dd95?q=%22natural+selection%22#21056ae9baa4dd95 On May 2 2004, 7:45 pm, "Zachriel" wrote: > "IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnow...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message > > news:IKnowHim-0205040915100001@pm1-34.kalama.com... > > >Natural Selectionor How Goo changed to You > > > Natural selction, as defined by the evolutionary religionists, > > The study of biological evolution is a science, not a religion. > > > actually > > involves only cyclical variations in fundamentally stable populations; > > these do not show a population headed in the direction of becoming > > something different(Cog or Dat). Simple logic(which is unknown in the > > Darwinist camps) shows how absurb it is to describenatural selectionas > > information generating. Natural selectiondoes not actually "select," > > Sure it does. > > > much less create. The term is a misleading metaphor for the proposition > > that early death or sterility is not necessarily random. Some creatures > > may survive to reproduce because they have some advantageous attributes(as > > the ability to run faster or leap higher to avoid being eaten), but the > > quality has to be there already beforenatural selectioncan favor it. > > That's correct. New traits and modifications of existing traits are caused > by mutation *before* they are acted upon byNatural Selection.

Are you using "acted apon" in the pattern or design sense? Darwin used the term in the pattern sense.


> > Death doesn't do any creating, whether it is radom or not. > > Everybody dies. But some reproduce before dying. This is known as > differential reproduction.

Who says differential reproduction, it wasn't Darwin.


ddd Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e3fad710cd222857/b02728db1178e4b2#b02728db1178e4b2


natural retention Edit

On Mar 5, 1:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >Terms, sentences, words and phrases have no meaning, you can only > >extended an idea. What idea that Darwin had 150 years ago explained > >how chemicals turns into humans?

> natural selection. And what concept does this represent, who said NS?

> >Among Darwin's last words upon the factors of Evolution are those in > >the sixth edition of the Origin of Species (1880, p. 424). In the > >modi- fication of species he refers as causes, successively to his > >own, to Lamarck's, and to Buffon's factor in the following clear > >language:

>>"This has been effected chiefly through the natural > >selection of numerous, successive, slight, favourable variations; > >aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and > >disuse of parts ; and in an un- important manner that is, in relation > >to adaptive structures, whether past or present by the direct action > >of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our > >ignorance to arise spon- taneously." Later, in the Descent of Man > >(1881,

Would you agree that we could replace Natural selection with Natural retention in the above paragraph? The question then would be is "retention" being used in the design or pattern sense.


> you keep spinning yourself in circles, achieving a fanatical vertigo. > the concept of natural selection is empirical. > > since your view of the world excludes, for religious reasons, > empricism, natural selection as a testable idea is meaningless to you.

Natural selection or retention/perservation/survival.


uu Edit

{{{ On Mar 5, 4:09 am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 10:20 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your posts are empty of substance since you incorrectly think: "Terms, > sentences, words and phrases have no meaning, you can only extended an > idea."

What does quark mean? Is it a German cheese, QM concept or whatever idea I wish to symbolically represent with it.

> Actually some "ideas" can be empirically operationalized and tell us > something about the attributes of evolution, human behavior and the > universe we live in.

How did these attributes of evolution explain how matter created itself, since matter can neither be destroyed nor created ?

> Empirically approaching reality requires skills > that you avoid learning because of your OCD based religious desire to > not have any understanding of evolution.

Depends how matter evolved, what would be this evolutionary understanding of how water created itself ? }}}

ggg Edit

{{{ On Mar 4, 4:20 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Mar, 19:26, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/11/is-natural-selection-tautology.php > > Natural selection is not a tautology at all. Differential reproductive > success is evidence of differential fitness; it is not the definition > of fitness.

Bill you haven't been reading the threads. Darwin never said DRS , nobody knows what idea is being represented with it. Who says DRS? Neither did Darwin say "differential fitness". Natural selection isn't even a sentence, how could it be a tautology? Roger rabbit is also two words but the idea with RR isn't a tautology. What is your idea with NS. If it has something to do with the symbols DRS , then what idea do these symbols represent.

Fintess has no meaning nor a definition, idea though are defined. Any idea can be represented with the symbol fitness........ All together now: Fitness has no meaning neither does it have a definition. Words aren't defined idea are .For something to be "defined" a conscious agent must understand the definition. A definition is only something can be understood . A symbol like Fitness can be used to symbolically represent such an definition, but the symbol fitness itself has no definition.

I am not trying to be silly, in ordinary speech we do indeed say ...... green is defined etc...... but what we mean by this needs to articulated and documented.


}}}

dddd Edit

{{{ On Mar 3, 8:33 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I ask what concept is being symbolically represented with NS - NS > itself like quark has no meaning. One person could indeed mean that > the Gaia selection force selects.

> > When you *know* that such questions are not implied by the usage.

> Depends who is doing the implying, NS a cluster of symbols like a > cluster of rocks can't imply anything, only the user can imply > something.

We need to know who is implying what because everybody is using two words NS as some sort of universal mechanism that explains everything which would make it just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics.

In physics we have thousands of different equations like the Schroedinger wave equation etc. The term "wave equation" represents a specific set of ideas within the vast complexity of physics. But Biology is far more complicated, so complicated that only recently have we realized we are dealing with abstract transition matrices that maps chemicals into walking robot made out of carbon instead of copper.

But we don't even know where to begin to describe these equations, there is a sort of Godelian like wall that blocks us from comprehending the signal/noise, algorithms , matrices etc. Because we face this abyss we can't cross as Godel's theorem suggests, the materialists have attempted to provide an explanation by reformulating Aristotle: What happens happens. In order to fill this vacuum in our understanding something we can't even define they have hijacked selection, evolution to symbolically represent their idea: What happens happens,the reason chickens walk is because that walk.

The symbols "selection:" and "evolution" was used by theists under a different premise for hundreds of years. But strategic deceit Charles Kingsley concept of "..... absolute empire of accident..." was associate with "selection". Usually selection in 99/% of cases represent an idea that has nothing do with chance.

Thus the Aristotelians are language terrorists, in the same way as using Quark to represent a German Cheese while the hearer thinks he is talking about QM.

How does a chicken implement inverted pendulum control at the abstract algorithm level? The Empedoclian answer to this is that there was a battle between the good and bad algorithm , the strong algorithm won , the baddy died.

But of course no atheist would dare offer such an explanation they rather tell us about the fight between the organisms and alleles, the bad dinosaurs died because they were extinction prone. But dinosaurs were complex algorithms implemented in carbon atoms. A computer is an algorithm implemented in copper wire. The matter is separate from the idea. We are clusters of carbon atoms, IBM mainframes are clusters of copper atoms: Both are the symbolic representation of an idea. }}}


uuu Edit

{{{ On Mar 3, 6:32 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Again, you are intentionally confusing different meanings. In modern > English, one can say "acts like" to mean "is similar to". If my use > of the more metaphorical "acts like" confuses you, please replace it > with "is similar to". I certainly agree that it is often the case

Using sieve in the pattern sense: 1) The environment acts like a sieve. 2) The environment is similar to a sieve. 1 and 2 says the same thing.


> > Problem is that the word "design" is > > now verboten in academia especially in biology papers apparently. > > Rumour has it that too many "designs" would lead a rejection for > > publication.

> 'Design' is often used in a metaphorical sense in biology papers to > refer to solutions natural processes arrived at to solve a particular > problem without the implication that the process was intelligently > designed and manufactured by some outside agent.

1) Solutions that John arrived at. 2) Solutions that natural processes arrived at.

2 you are using in the pattern sense. Which is allowed , any word can be used to convey any intent, but it is confusing because usually natural processes(pattern) don't arrive at solutions(design). Solutions(design) is something that John arrives at. Pattern can't induce design, design can only induce pattern. Are you saying that Design is subject unto the random atoms in our heads?


> And 'design' is, in > fact, often appropriately used to refer to examples of human design in > organisms (aka, different kinds of 'artificial' organisms). It is > also appropriately used for the 'design' of things like termite mounds > where the designer has significantly less intelligence than humans.

Who is the designer of termite mounds, how did termites figure out how to build a structure that allows the correct temp and airflow.


> > > All it requires is the capacity to discriminate. > > Nope, selection requires nothing.

> Typical idiot word games. I was referring to "the proper modern > English usage of the word 'selection'" not the process itself in my > use of the simpler replacement 'it'.

Have no idea what that is, can you provide citations, references.

> We *were* talking about what the > *word* means in modern English usage, weren't we?

What does quark mean?


> > > A magnet can 'select' iron > > > from a mixture of iron and aluminum. And do so without making any > > > decision at all (intelligent or otherwise).

> > Correct, selection was used in the pattern sense.

> I did not explicitly point that out. *You* understood that from > context and prior knowledge about the nature of magnets, iron, and > aluminum. Yet *you* play dumb when it comes to natural selection and > keep asking *who* selects and *who* naturalled.

I ask what concept is being symbolically represented with NS - NS itself like quark has no meaning. One person could indeed mean that the Gaia selection force selects.

> When you *know* that such questions are not implied by the usage.

Depends who is doing the implying, NS a cluster of symbols like a cluster of rocks can't imply anything, only the user can imply something.


> > > > And if you strip away all the naturals and > > > > selections, alleles, memes, phenotypes, genotypes etc. we wind up the > > > > Empedoclian tautological core: The favorable one became common, those > > > > not favorable didn't like the dinosaurs who died because they were > > > > "extinction prone" - ala Gould. > > > More evidence that the problem lies not in those using the words, but > > > in the capacity of this particular observer to understand them.

> > Words have no meaning , only you can have a meaning from your premise > > that "design is subset of pattern"

> Design *is* a subset of pattern.

Which is a collection of symbols , but what it symbolically represents I don't know.

> Can *you* point out a case of > 'designed' object(s) or process (by presenting empirical evidence of > its 'designer') which is not also part of a 'pattern' of some sort > (random pattern is still a pattern, and single unique objects that > have been designed must have also been at least a mental image in the > mind of the designer, and thus are patterned after that image)? If > you can't, just give up this particular attempt at word games.

The mind itself, soul has no physical location. Our grey matter isn't the real us. When we die our souls keep on living.


> > > In > > > 'selection', as it is used in biology, favorable is defined by > > > relative position (in a given environment) on a metric of reproductive > > > success

> > Who defined what?

> Current technical usage of any scientific word or phrase is defined by > the community of the relevant scientists.

What time era 1859 or after?

> > Selection having no meaning like a rock has no > > meaning can be used anyway you want to and Humpty Dumpty would concur, > > altough Alice was perplexed.

> So, are you saying that no words have meaning in general? Exactly, no meaning. Meaning is an abstract concept, meaning has no physical location.

> In which > case, the OED might be interested in your ideas. Or are you claiming > that only certain words have no meaning? No word, rocks or sentence has any meaning.

> If you really believe that, > that means you cannot understand a word anyone has ever written you.

What does quark mean if I don't tell you who says quark and what meaning he is symbolically representing with it.


> But your semi-intelligent responses indicate that you understand > enough of what has been written to make word game 'critiques' (so to > speak) of what is written. That is, your posting belies your claims > that meaning is impossible.

Meaning is only possible because meaning came before matter existed.


> > >-- the relationship is direct rather than inverse.

> > Which depends which person's concept you are projecting.

> Like I said, current usage is defined by the community using the > word.

Current meaning symbolically represented with NS today is one thing, but the meaning that was encoded for in 1858 was "....absolute empire of accident..." by Charles Kingsley, chance by John Burroughs and chance by Osborn. That is the meaning they understood Darwin to symbolically have presented with NS or Natural preservation, SoF or Natural means of selection.


> And that community have collectively decided that the > relationship is direct rather than inverse. Nobody can decide to make any symbol mean anything, only that a symbol represents some meaning, whatever he chooses the meaning to be.


> That is, in this case, > that greater reproductive success is considered to be 'favorable' from > the perspective of the organisms.

Which is a cluster of symbols that encodes for some meaning you have , how you derived this from DArwin or anybody else isn't clear. Some person must be interpreted , either yourself , which would make it orignal research OR and thus unacceptable or somebody else: Who is this person? You might have your own theories but so does thousands of others.

> That choice was made because of the > obvious importance that organisms place on reproduction, often > favoring it over life itself.

Choice made by who?

> > > Moreover, > > > in order for something to be called *selection* (positive or negative)

> > Pattern or design?

> What do you think? Design is positive and pattern is negative? Which depends what you mean with "design is subset of pattern".


> Can't you get it from context like any intelligent > English speaker? I can.

Sure you can because like Humpty Dumpty you can use any symbol to convey any meaning, but at the risk that nobody then knows what you are saying, as Alice pointed out.

> In this case, it is both or either since > selection, per se, can be either natural or artificial.

The symbol selection has no meaning, it can't be natural neither artificial. It can though symbolically represent patterns or designs by the user, natural or artificial.


> However, to > have the modifier 'artificial', there must be an empirically > observable and observed 'designer/manufacturer'.

Which depends on what you mean with artificial.

> In the absence of > such an observable and observed 'designer/manufacturer', no such agent > can be assumed.

Depends who says so.


> > "Neutral", "Drift" and "selection" mean nothing, what the idea though > > is has a meaning. Thus who says drift and how why is he using > > selection. Darwin didn't use drift because drift has something to do > > with genes, thus a different concept.

> The meaning of these words is defined and described by the community > of people to whom it is relevant. That obviously does not include > people who are merely interested in word games. That you are an > ignorant observer that does not understand the meaning does not mean > the words are meaningless to everyone.

All words are meaningless, the ideas they represent though isn't.


> > > So merely being the most > > > common trait does not necessarily mean that that particular trait was > > > *selected* for.

> > We now have a few symbols being used with selection: Drift, "most > > common" and neutral which is used to convey somebodies idea and how > > explained how an egg turned into a chicken. Who is this person?

> No single 'person'. A community of persons. Just like all words. > There will also always be people to whom the words or meanings are not > clear. Words have no meaning.

> They are typically ignorant of the language and its current > usage. Exactly the usage now, might not have been the usage in 1859.


> > > It must also not merely be due to neutral drift; > > Whatever that means.

> Teaching you the meaning of a 'random walk' or 'neutral drift' would > be a fruitless enterprise since you are so ignorant of English that > you cannot even understand simple words like 'pattern' and 'design' > and actually claim that all words are meaningless.

All words are meaningless, ideas not.


> > that > > > is, there must be some sort of environmental causation that makes it > > > more fit than whatever variant it is being compared to.

> > Is "environmental causation" being used in the cause or effect sense? > > Water doesn't cause corn to grow, neither does food cause humans to > > grow. Food is needed for growth but isn't the real reason.

> In the necessary but not sufficient cause sense.

Whatever that means.


> > > But backspace has been told this again and again. The problem lies > > > not in the message but in the observer.

> > The problem lies in the fact that "selection" like "green" has no > > meaning and the failure for society to grasp this.

> I am quite aware of your claim that *you* do not understand the > meaning of *any* words. Like I say, the problem lies in the observer, > not the message. Most modern English speakers have an understanding > of the meaning of 'green' (although that might exclude some color > blind observers) because they are both capable of learning that > meaning from others and have tried to do so. That is how language is > learned and becomes part of our shared patrimony. That you are > incapable of learning and claim not to be able to understand *any* > modern English word usage is sad for you. But not my problem nor a > problem for people who are capable of learning the meanings of a > shared language, be they *all* English speakers or a smaller community > of individuals sharing a more technical meaning of a word or phrase.

}}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Mar 1, 4:58 pm, Erwin Moller > >> What would matter is if you could demonstrate that natural selection > >> is not a fact of nature. > > What is a natural selection ?

> Why don't you go to your local library (not church library) and get a > basic book on the subject?

Ok, here is the concept as defined by

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

"...........Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.............."

There is just a slight problem: Who says so? No citation is given, nobody knows who wrote that on Wikipedia. There is no meaning without intent, the quote is a collection of symbols, they have no meaning: They mean nothing. They can only represent symbolically an idea: What idea and by whom? }}}

4444 Edit

{{{ On Mar 2, 8:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Thus overly fixation on "random mutation" especially from Dembski, > > the ID crowd is really doing damage to the understanding the > > underlying Pagan myths we are dealing with.- Hide quoted text -

> Can you provide a link or two showing this damage by Dembski and his > crowd?

Basically my wiki here: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology It is ongoing and links etc. will be added as time allows.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/03/fewer-jobs-fewer-baby-boys.html "....Specifically, their research supports the argument that when women receive signals that times are tough, their bodies retain the tendency, shaped over thousands of years through natural selection, to reject offspring less likely to survive.

.......To our ancient ancestors, those signs would presumably be signals of impending drought or other natural disaster, which would indicate a coming food scarcity. Catalano and colleagues concluded the closest thing we have today is the announcement of mass layoffs at major employers, which impacts "the degree to which the larger population perceives a threat to its economic security."......"

This paragraph is an example of how saying NS induces brain damage: ".....reject offspring less likely to survive..." says the same thing twice but doesn't tell us why the infants died. There were chemical reactions etc, they died and thus were "rejected". Some chemical reaction in the womb killed them, why this occured isn't explained by saying they were "rejected" , it is on the level as Gould which his "extinction prone" dinosaurs.

The phenomena of death and reasons in each case has what to with natural?

The author is correct that job creation is basically over, over as in for the next 20 years. Younger people aren't being trained, capital takes over labor, automation robotics etc. In one study it was found that consumers make up 45% of all economic activity and not 75%, the economy will expand as in the rich richer. Basically the only job for many of us is going to be Forex trading it seems.

So it isn't a good idea to have kids unless you have a business and have a job ready for him when he is 18 or can trade forex and now how to transfer such knowledge.

The army won't even be able to absorb anyone because drones will take over the fighting. And for YEC the situation is far worse..... better brush up on my forex skills I guess... }}}


etrerere Edit

{{{ On Mar 2, 11:15 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Suddenly this is no more the case, we are dealing with a form of new- > > speak and is thus in the same mess as we would be if Honeywell decides > > that a byte isn't 8 bits anymore but whatever they want to make it > > mean: Which they obviously can do. But then no CPU would be able to > > understand their CPU instructions.

> > Why I ask must "selection" be used if nobody made a "decision" ,

> To use the word 'selection' properly in English does not require any > *body* to make a "decision".

Words have no meaning, neither can they have a proper meaning as was discussed in this thread: Sentences have no meaning, they symbolically represent an idea: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/SentencesHaveNoMeaning

> After all, English speakers can and do > say that a sieve "selects" for and retains those objects that do not > fit through its holes.

They use selection in either the patter or design sense yes, but what does it mean when you say "design is subset of pattern" .

> An organism's environment acts like a sieve > and "selects" for those variants of organisms better able to extract > energy and survival with emphasis on the ability to reproduce. It > does so without making any decisions.

Correct, since "selects" has no meaning one could deduce your intent as using selects to symbolically represent a pattern and not a design. But there is still ambiguity , the "environment acts" should be used in the "effect" sense because the organism responds to its environment, environment doesn't cause corn to grow. Rain doesn't cause corn to grow, water is one attribute that must be there for the DNA to give the grow instruction. We must guard against a cause effect inversion.


> > how does nature make decisions?

> Again, the proper English use of the word 'selection' does not require > *anything* to make decisions (intelligent or otherwise).

Since "selection" is only a symbol and not alive it has no requirements. We though as rational agents require that when "selection" is used in the pattern or design sense , the user of the tool must make his intent clear. Problem is that the word "design" is now verboten in academia especially in biology papers apparently. Rumour has it that to many "designs" would lead a rejection for publication.

> All it requires is the capacity to discriminate. Nope, selection requires nothing.

> A magnet can 'select' iron > from a mixture of iron and aluminum. And do so without making any > decision at all (intelligent or otherwise).

Correct, selection was used in the pattern sense.


> > And if you strip away all the naturals and > > selections, alleles, memes, phenotypes, genotypes etc. we wind up the > > Empedoclian tautological core: The favorable one became common, those > > not favorable didn't like the dinosaurs who died because they were > > "extinction prone" - ala Gould.

> More evidence that the problem lies not in those using the words, but > in the capacity of this particular observer to understand them.

Words have no meaning , only you can have a meaning from your premise that "design is subset of pattern"

> In > 'selection', as it is used in biology, favorable is defined by > relative position (in a given environment) on a metric of reproductive > success

Who defined what? Selection having no meaning like a rock has no meaning can be used anyway you want to and Humpty Dumpty would concur, altough Alice was perplexed.

>-- the relationship is direct rather than inverse. Which depends which person's concept you are projecting.

> Moreover, > in order for something to be called *selection* (positive or negative) Pattern or design?

> it must have an effect significantly different from "no selection", Pattern or design.

> the situation where there is neutral drift.

"Neutral", "Drift" and "selection" mean nothing, what the idea though is has a meaning. Thus who says drift and how why is he using selection. Darwin didn't use drift because drift has something to do with genes, thus a different concept.


> So merely being the most > common trait does not necessarily mean that that particular trait was > *selected* for. We now have a few symbols being used with selection: Drift, "most common" and neutral which is used to convey somebodies idea and how explained how an egg turned into a chicken. Who is this person?

> It must also not merely be due to neutral drift; Whatever that means.

that > is, there must be some sort of environmental causation that makes it > more fit than whatever variant it is being compared to.

Is "environmental causation" being used in the cause or effect sense? Water doesn't cause corn to grow, neither does food cause humans to grow. Food is needed for growth but isn't the real reason.


> But backspace has been told this again and again. The problem lies > not in the message but in the observer.

The problem lies in the fact that "selection" like "green" has no meaning and the failure for society to grasp this. Howard you as human created by the Lord Jesus (who loves you very much) has a meaning, you ideas , hopes and dreams have meaning. What isn't clear is what is this meaning to an observer like me.

}}}

ddd Edit

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/03/more_skepticism_of_natural_sel.php ".....The differences that make us human are more likely due to mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into which we moved, and these mutations then accumulated through time......."

Other than noting the mutations were accumulated how was their favorability measured?


df Edit

{{{ On Mar 2, 2:58 pm, Burkhard wrote: > Anyway, your statement is also factually wrong. It needs to be a > mistake at the right place. We _know_, a priori, that any sufficiently > complex computer program will have bugs (big problem for contract > lawyers, at one point) They work, sufficiently well, nonetheless.

A toyota engineer using Ethernet to signal from one CPU to another can't invent his own pet definition of what Ethernet symbolically represents, by arbitrarily using the spec for ATM protocol. With the word "selection" we had a sort of an unwritten rule or law if wish that what we mean by this, what we are encoding is a decision.

Suddenly this is no more the case, we are dealing with a form of new-speak and is thus in the same mess as we would be if Honeywell decides that a byte isn't 8 bits anymore but whatever they want to make it mean: Which they obviously can do. But then no CPU would be able to understand their CPU instructions.

Why I ask must "selection" be used if nobody made a "decision" , how does nature make decisions? And if you strip away all the naturals and selections, alleles, memes, phenotypes, genotypes etc. we wind up the Empedoclian tautological core: The favorable one became common, those not favorable didn't like the dinosaurs who died because they were "extinction prone" - ala Gould.

}}}

uhuh Edit

{{{ On Mar 2, 2:19 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote: > > See what is going on in this forum. Now imagine you are a student at a > > University , the third time you ask your profesorial overlord "what > > naturaled and who did the selecting" , he will throw you out of the > > class. Everybody must work, study and respond under the assumption > > that NS isn't grammatical gargoyle from a linguistic point of view and > > from a pragmatics angle that somewhere somebody somehow defined the > > idea that he is representing with NS. Because NS like, dog, cat and > > green has no meaning it can only symbolically represent and idea. The > > symbols can change like "quark" means a specific type of cheese in > > Germany, but not the idea the user was projecting.

> Imagine that some idiot was disrupting the class by going on and on > about some stupid and worthless topic.

The problem is that medical students, Xtians, YEC have to do a course in your Empedoclian tautological thinking where they have to say: The dinosaurs died because they were "extinction prone" and therefore there is no God. Or as Aristotle put it "....... we are result of accident because those that were constituted weren't perishable and those non constituted were perishable...."

The neo-Aristotelians is forcing everybody to think like them , polluting the sciences from biology, cosmology, physics to math , religion ,politics everything with their pagan battle for survival myths.

}}}

cdddd Edit

{{{ On Mar 2, 12:46 am, marks542...@yahoo.com wrote: > K, quick lesson on wiki stuff. On that page click the HISTORY tab . > That shows you who edited the page and the diffs will let you find > which author added what parts. The 69 references and the further > reading links should find you the original sources. > If you challange a statement then edit it and add a Template:Fact tag . It > should not take long for someone to add a ref for it.

And if we finally track him down we find out he actually died and is now a skeleton in front of his PC. He actually had a completely different version, had a heart attack gave the cat a fright which jumped on CTRL+V + Enter and "poof" that sentence appeared on Wikipedia. The problem is that the dead author never had the intent! He didn't really want to write that it was something he was trying to rebut.

You see it my job to track down who wrote what, if you write something then you must give me the citation. Cite the book, the page, the person the means of deduction, the chain of reasoning: Who says the favorable becomes common?

Well thus says Aristotle , from who Darwin lifted his concept as he wrote "...... we can see here the principle of natural selection shadowed forth......" Darwin took Aristotle's , Empedocles idea and reformulated it, maintaining the same tautological essence and then symbolically represented the idea with the symbol string NS. Because NS, like green and cat has no meaning not now , not ever.

Open the a Journal of biological mathematics and note how NS is used together with differential equations. But Darwin couldn't do math, thus the same term is used but it can't possibly be the same concept. Just like "quark" in Germany is a cheese and in another context symbolically represents a concept in quantum mechanics: Same symbol different idea. }}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Mar 2, 2:30 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote: > On Mar 1, 8:31 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 1, 2:59 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> One clue. It doesn't matter. > > > > What would matter is if you could demonstrate that natural selection > > > is not a fact of nature. > > > What is a natural selection ? > > total loser. > > Ron Okimoto > SNIP:

See what is going on in this forum. Now imagine you are a student at a University , the third time you ask your profesorial overlord "what naturaled and who did the selecting" , he will throw you out of the class. Everybody must work, study and respond under the assumption that NS isn't grammatical gargoyle from a linguistic point of view and from a pragmatics angle that somewhere somebody somehow defined the idea that he is representing with NS. Because NS like, dog, cat and green has no meaning it can only symbolically represent and idea. The symbols can change like "quark" means a specific type of cheese in Germany, but not the idea the user was projecting.

But the very first time you say "natural , natural we are all going to get naturaled" the Lord Jesus picks up his erasure and pulls the book of Life closer. The angles tense, they clench their teeth...... will this Xtian again say "natural" ....? The second time you say "natural selection" Christ lifts up his hand. The third time ..... you have denied your Lord, you are banished .....

You must decide between your career , high paying job and your soul. When little Johnny gives his heart to Jesus at age 7, ask him first "What do you want to become?" A doctor he says! Sorry Johnny ,..... at some point in time you will have to say "natural" - , nobody can get any biological qualification without saying "natural". What naturaled? }}}


8888 Edit

{{{ On Mar 1, 9:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Which depends to which theory as formulated by which individual you > > are referring to, were you talking Darwin, about his idea,concept , > > reference frame, hopes and dreams which symbolically represented with > > the symbol NS?

> The author of the link provided no definitions because he or she > assumes a certain amount of facts in order to get to the reason-for- > being or point of their essay. Definitions, of course, are very > important. But the whole point of this particular essay is to > establish that natural selection is a list of facts. The implication > being, in turn, that this list of facts, in conjunction with random > mutation, acts as a creative force. Excluding random mutation, > everything is supported except the implication that the facts act as a > creative force. That part is assumed based on the facts. In short, the > essay is defending a just-so story. > > Ray

I broadly agree but note that "random mutation" has to do with genetic changes, something Darwin knew nothing about. My focus is on how the term NS was used in the context of 1859, their reference frame with their knowledge....... which had nothing to do with genes.

Genes and "random mutations" is important to discuss in our context but the most important concept is realizing that NS has no meaning, it was and remains merely the symbolic rerpresentation of an idea. That idea in 1859 wasn't genes but something else: The reformulation or reintroduction, co-option , embedding of Aristotle, Democritus, Heraclitus and Empedocles ideas which in turn are based on Sumerian and Babilonian pagan religions which had battle for survival theme between fire and water, Gods and and seamonsters etc..... which today is the battle between the Alleles.

Thus overly fixation on "random mutation" especially from Dembski, the ID crowd is really doing damage to the understanding the underlying Pagan myths we are dealing with.

}}


df Edit

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/11/is-natural-selection-tautology.php

> In population genetics, fitness is usually defined by reference to reproductive success. Who defined it, who said reproductive success?

> The details vary - some authors define fitness by the absolute number of offspring, some by reference to the population average, and so on - And who are they?

> but roughly speaking, the fittest organism (or gene) is the one with the greatest number of offspring. You have represented an idea "greatest number of offspring" with the symbol fitness - why did you do this and who told you to do this, because I certainly didn't. Did Darwin maybe?

> It may therefore be said that the ‘reproduction of the fittest’ is a tautology: the fittest individuals necessarily have the most offspring, > because that is how fitness is defined.

That depends who defined what when and where, who represented whatever idea with the symbol "fitness" ?

> This is apparently regarded by Creationists as some kind of knockout blow for the theory of evolution by natural selection. What theory?

> Oddly enough, they also argue that natural selection is inadequate, impossible, and so on, which would be absurd if they really believed it > was a tautology. Natural selection isn't even a sentence, it has no meaning, who has said that what idea defined by whom is inadequate for what?


> But the point I want to emphasise is that even if we define fitness by reference to reproductive success Who is this "we" now? I haven't defined fitness as being anything, it means nothing, it is just a symbol.


> (which is convenient, but not essential, in population genetics), Who considers what essential in the differential equations describing pop.genetics, certainly not Darwin he didn't know about genes and could do differential equations , the idea that he symbolically represented with "natural selection" had nothing to do with genes - what idea are you referring to?

> this in no way implies that the theory of evolution by natural selection (TENS) is a tautology. Well, who knows, that theory where by whom isn't a tautology. This term "theory of evolution" Darwin used only twice in his book , are you referring to the ideas he encoded with the term. As in the ideas, because the idea is separate from the symbol string.

> TENS involves at least the following seven empirical facts or generalisations:

Maybe they do, but according to whom are they facts? Are they not perhaps truisms. ?

> 1. Individual organisms differ in reproductive success. Which depends on what idea and who has this idea being symbolically represented with the symbol RS.

> This is not a tautology: it is an empirical matter of fact. Ofcourse it isn't a tautology, it is a cluster of symbols that is supposed to symbolically represent and idea: Only ideas can be tautological, symbols like rocks and trees can't be tautological.

> 2. Differences in reproductive success are associated with phenotypic traits. Who has associated what with they symbol "phenotypic" - who says so?

> Traits associated with superior reproductive success (in a given environment, etc.) may be described as adaptive. Linux isn't adapted to its environment and neither is a tiger, Linux and Tigers viewed as abstract representations of an algorithm in somebodies mind are already described by their attributes.

> It is not a tautology that adaptive traits exist. Depends who says adaptive traits and what concept they are projecting in terms of what I have written above.


> It would be logically possible that differences in reproductive success are merely a matter of chance. Depends who says RS and what concept he has in mind.

> In this case there would be no way of predicting whether a trait would increase in frequency from one generation to the next. After a > succession of many generations, purely by chance, some traits might increase or decrease in frequency, but this would be genetic drift, not > natural selection.

Some decrease, some don' t - what happens , happens.


> 3. Some adaptive traits are heritable. Who says so, what is the concept being projected with "adaptive".


> They tend to be reproduced by genetic inheritance, even over many generations. Truism, every act of reproduction involves genes.

> This is not a tautology. Of course not , it is a truism.

> It would be logically possible that offspring did not share their parents’ adaptive traits, or that these would disappear after a few > generations. Some share traits , some don't - what happens, happens.

> 5. Some mutations increase adaptiveness. This is not a tautology. Which depends who says "adaptiveness" and how he solved the transition matrix that maps polypeptice space into frog-space.


> 6. There is no inbuilt limit to the amount of cumulative genetic change. This is not a tautology.

Correct, at first it was a truism, the way you state it , it becomes a truism.

> 7. Perhaps most important of all, mutations have no tendency to occur in directions favourable to adaptive traits. It is often said (and I > have recently said it myself) that mutation is random with respect to adaptativeness, but this can be misleading.

Who says adaptiveness?


>I conclude that while population genetics may contain some tautological statements (as John Maynard Smith once remarked, any theory involving >two lines of algebra will contain tautologies),

Any theory contains axiomatic premises or logical validity's such as A or not-A.


> the theory of evolution by natural selection is by no means a tautology, and rumours of its death are, as usual, greatly exaggerated. Which depends to which theory as formulated by which individual you are referring to, not once did you say Darwin, were you talking about his idea,concept , reference frame, hopes and dreams which symbolically represented with the symbol NS?

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.