FANDOM



Wikipedia selection article Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/015c3069fc289984#


asdf Edit

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selection&oldid=246518771


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolutionary_pressure&oldid=225297511


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_of_Darwin%27s_theory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification redirects to evolution


artificial selection Edit

{{{ On May 7, 5:11 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote: > On May 6, 6:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 6, 7:17 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote: > > > > Your claim was "It was actually a statement by the AAAS that evolution > > > happens by chance [...]". You've had the basic workings of natural > > > selection explained to you enough so it's hard to believe you don't > > [snip] > > I'm reposting, in entirety, the post you claim to be responding to. > Answer it.

I am reading an article downloaded from a document server for instructors to teach kids the principle of natural selection. They make a filter by punching holes to filter the small beans as they shake it. One can achieve the same result by manually picking out the small beans on a table from the larger beans. What is in reality been shown with the filter is "automated selection" or what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program would call "automated artificial selection", which is a design because the intended result has been predetermined by punching a certain size hole. The person filtering the beans *knows in advance* what the result will be.

Artificial is an interesting word because "artificial selection" like "natural selection" and "colorless green" makes no sense. It depends though as posted elsewhere, "artificial" could be used as a proxy for "forced selection" and "natural selection" for more "relaxed selection", which just shows words and sentences have no meaning, only what the person intends has meaning.

As posted: ".... I was driving my car and got a call to come to the office , with reluctance I made and "artificial decision" to return, a more natural selection would have been to carry on to the pub....." In other words a "forced decision" or "forced selection between driving onwards or returning" was made instead of a more "relaxed decision" to continue to the pub. The selection or decision was made between the two options.

Design banished from the discussion by Darwin was sneaked back in from 1991 onwards as the full force of Dembski, Berlinksi's arguments began to dawn on the Empedoclians. They concocted a whole new vocabularly such as "non-random natural selection" , a phrase which a NY times search indicates surfaced only around 1991 about. Before that articles like Newsweek had "random natural selection" the meaning as understood by Burroughs in 1922, in his articles in the Atlantic, which are now being censored by them it seems, since they only partially list his works, just like Kingsley is always quoted out of context, the ".... absolute empire of accident ,,," part is left out.

Darwin used "unconscious selection" by which he probably meant designs but with unforseen effects. So it goes on "selection" this selection that , but the question remains unanswered as posed in Botanical gazette 1912 around: How can we explain how monkeys turns into humans if we can't explain how an egg turns into a chicken. }}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On May 6, 7:17 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote: > Your claim was "It was actually a statement by the AAAS that evolution > happens by chance [...]". You've had the basic workings of natural > selection explained to you enough so it's hard to believe you don't

The quote below is from John S. Wilkins and is a display of what I coin the "Popperian dual meaning". Popper had a knack for seemingly agreeing with somebody but then really saying the person's theory is unfalsifiable as in his famous "recanting" that natural selection is a tautology and metaphysical research program. What he really did was throw the Aristotelians a bone to shut-up and leave an old man alone, they couldn't really grasp what he was saying, it went over their heads... Popper didn't really "recant". (If an experiment falsifies your position you amend your position - not "recant")

http://philpapers.org/rec/WILDUV "....Few problems in the philosophy of evolutionary biology are more widely disseminated and discussed than the charge of Darwinian evolution being a tautology. The history is long and complex, and the issues are many, and despite the problem routinely being dismissed as an introductory-level issue, based on misunderstandings of evolution, it seems that few agree on what exactly these misunderstandings consist of. In this paper, I will try to comprehensively review the history and the issues. Then, I will try to present the following “solution”, or, one might say, “dissolution”, of the problem, and consider the wider implications of formal, or schematic, explanations in science: yes, the principle of natural selection is a tautology, and so what? It is a promissory note for actual, physical, explanations in particular cases, and is none the worse for that. This is not a new argument, of course, but it does point up the importance of formal schematic models in science...."

Haven't read the paper yet by Wilkins but note the sentence: "...yes, the principle of natural selection is a tautology, and so what?...."

There is a difference between a logical validity, rhetorical tautology, necessary truth, logical tautology, tautological expression: They all resort under the rubric tautology or "generic tautology". The single word "tautology" is the generic semantic label, but it doesn't discern by itself between the types of tautological prose available to the rhetorician , poet, thinker and wit in the same way the word "love" alone doesn't tell us what type of love is implied.

What type of tautology did Wilkins refer to , from the initial passage itself one can't deduce because of the limited lexicon in the English language. My best initial bet from his other writings is that he equivocates between a "necessary truth" and "rhetorical tautology" committing the logical fallacy of "innocence by association" by using the generic label "tautology" and by semantic slight of hand seemingly reconciles Darwin's rhetorical tautology "... the truth of these propositions cannot be disputed..." with the Popperian demand that a proposition had better be disputable or it is a logical fallacy.

}}}


post 214 Edit

{{{ On May 6, 11:24 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 5 May, 12:04, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 5, 11:03 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > > > I explain later. It still takes quite a while. You need an average 13 > > > selections before you get the right the letter. Each time. This isn't > > > actually how the Weasel program works. > > > Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

> read it and note how you got it wrong

> > we get > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing. The hill climbing > > algorithm is a design.

> and? Did you read my last post? I said I agreed the WP has the problem > thats its ID (Intelligent Design). I also said it illustrates how > powerfully selection can reduce the time to a solution.

Are you using selection in the pattern or design sense?

> > "...The program is a vivid demonstration that the preservation of > > small changes in an evolving string of characters (or genes) can > > produce meaningful combinations in a relatively short time as long as > > there is some mechanism to select cumulative changes, whether it is a > > person identifying which traits are desirable (in the case of > > artificial selection) or a criterion of survival ("fitness") imposed > > by the environment (in the case of natural selection).... > > great! Now you understand that you'll stop this daft discussion!

> *** > mention of the Design Pattern Distinction are marked [DPD]. I cannot > answer questions on the DPD as no definition is available. > ***

The pattern design distinction was clear up and till 1859, before Darwin coined a grammatical gargoyle , that from a Chomskyite perspective was shown to be syntactically as meaningless as "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". Problem is that the Aristotelians can't drop NS because it is too deeply entrenched in their reformulation of the ancient battle for survival myths between Gods and seemonsters, fire and water. They wish they could in the light of Chomsky who is personally much more irritated with NS as a term then I am because it makes atheists look incredibly stupid. Maybe atheism is the correct world view, it is unfortunate that semantic rubbish was chosen to encode for it.

Even John Wilkins realizes that Atheists find themselves in the outrageous position of trying to justify NS on semantic grounds which is like trying to justify "Square circles" - there can't possibly exist such a thing if we define a selection as usually encoding for a decision.

He wrote a post about how our "volitional language makes it difficult to comprehend concepts in biology space" or something to that effect, read the original quote because I could be misquoting him.


> > [...] Does Evolution happen by chance?

> chance is involved, but no evolution doesn't happen by chance.

Are using in Evolution in the pattern sense? That was the sense in which Charles Kingsley , John Burroughs and Darwin used it in 1863 , 1920. It was also the understanding in 1991 by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/AAAS. ..... that was until Dembski and others showed with CSI that even if you had all of eternity you still won't even get an amino acid.... in the pattern sense ..... thus the Aristotelians started using "non-random natural selection". But if you ask them directed they say no, as they tunnel through a worm hole in and out of humpty dumpty space.

> Nor does it happen by god. It happens by chance (to provide variation) and > natural selection (to select amongst the variation).

Thus you are using NS in the design sense? Note that NS has no meaning thus one can do anything with it like you could use a hammer as paper weight.

}}}

jhjh Edit

{{{ http://www.dailycal.org/article/18178/academic_extinction

"....Darwin's theory affirms, is the result of random variation and natural selection. ...."

Darwin never said "random variations" or "random mutations". The word "random" doesn't occur in OoS.


Who is Berlinski interpreting and is he using "natural selection" in the pattern or design sense?

We could interpret a "random variation selected" in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample sense(design) and not the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense.

Dawkins weasel program for example he confuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample with Randomness. This game with words is huge fun, you should ask whomever is saying "random" whether he is using it in the design or pattern sense. Note that there isn't an article on Wikipedia expounding on Howard's "Design is subset of pattern" view.

It all depends on what concept the author is trying to convey: patterns or design. What parallel multi-universe he just came out from while going back to the future in his language time machine, wether Berlinksi, Dembski , Ken Ham or Jerry Fodor. They are a severe danger to the mental health of society. Especially Berlinski of all people knows very well that nothing got naturaled and nobody did any selectings.

As he wrote: "..... If natural selection as a concept were to be refuted, then nothing at all remains of the Theory of Evolution ...." , which is why it is so important for those writing books either defending or refuting "Evolution" (whatever that means) to never ask "what naturaled and who did the selecting...." because about what would Ken Ham then host a $22mil dinosaur adventure land? }}}


quantum reality Edit

{{{ On May 1, 10:25 pm, Burkhard wrote: > On 1 May, 20:53, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ee/ > > “Random mutations are usually neutral or harmful but occasionally > > they confer a benefit to an organism. Natural Selection filters out > > the harmful mutations, causing species to evolve.” > > > Is filters being used in the pattern or design sense? > > You ever drink filter coffee? Should answer your question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_filter_coffee ".....Outside India, a coffee drink prepared using a filter may be known as Filter Coffee or as Drip Coffee as the water passes through the grounds solely by gravity and not under pressure or in longer-term contact...."

Filter here would be used in the design sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_filter_coffee ".....South Indian Coffee, also known as Filter Coffee is a sweet milky coffee made from dark roasted coffee beans (70%-80%) and chicory (20%-30%), especially popular in the southern states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The most commonly used coffee beans are Arabica and Robusta grown in the hills of Karnataka (Kodagu, Chikkamagaluru and Hassan), Kerala (Malabar region) and Tamil Nadu (Nilgiris District, Yercaud and Kodaikanal)......"


Filter coffee in this context would be in the semantic label sense. This game with words is fascinating don't you think?


With natural selection we for example have "non-random natural selection" but when you ask the person he usually means "not directed" , which is strange because usually red means stop and non-random as used by wikipedia in the statistics articles means "directed volition" in taking samples.

The symbol "natural selection" is like a hammer: It has no intention to strike, a hammer can be used to strike or used as paper weight. What the various authors must determine is figure out whether they are using the symbol NS in the pattern or design sense. Even "non-random natural selection" doesn't tell us what is meant. The author for example could have just tunneled through a worm whole from another parallel multi univers, his atoms entering humpty dympty space as his quantum flux capacitor revs up in his desire to create his own self-emergent, self-organizing intimate cartoonish reality in cloud-coo-coo land language space. }}}


asdf Edit

{{{ On Apr 29, 1:04 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Are you using "process" in the design or pattern sense?

> I don't know. What does "pattern mean?

> Ok. I'll skip a step. I have a rough idea what you mean by pattern.

> I don't accept your dichotomy. The bridge and the mountain stream have > no intent behind them when they sort or filter things so they are > "pattern" in your sense. The seive may be being used with a purpose so > may be said to be "design" in your sense. I see no essential > difference in the process.

> Can you tell by looking at fine sand if it was pattern sorted or > design sorted?

What does self-emergent and self-organization mean as expounded upon in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata by Steven Wolfram who also just like Jerry Fodor things that natural selection is grammatical gargoyle? The Empedoclians have chosen a most unfortunate term from a Chomsky linguistic perspective to resurrect their pagan Babillonian and Sumerian battle for survival myth for a modern audience: Natural selection. What most Creationists don't get is that NS isn't the issue but the paganism it reintroduced into society by Matthews.

None of these words such as self-organization , selection or retention or whatever means anything, they are merely tools like a hammer is a tool (and has no intention itself to strike) that allows you to hammer out your ideas. But you must first figure out how your ideas can be made compatabitle with the first law of thermodynamics that says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. IF your premise is the universe made itself then you are in a logically self-defeating feedback loop because by Logic you say you accept the First law of thermodynamics and then directly afterwards in the next sentence contradict it.

Your inability to differentiate between patterns and designs is like people who think a green robot means stop and red means drive. This is wrecking havoc with our society , environment (patents prevent green energy), religion and politics. The way you think about something determines your condition of existence, mental health etc.

}}}

bbc video Edit

In the Blind watchmaker video at 43mins

(http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/41871790/bbc+dawkins+blind+watchmaker?tab=summary)

Dawkins says: ".....Chance intervenes, mistakes occur, occasionally they are preserved. We are nothing more than the accumulation of DNA mistakes generated randomly and guided by natural selection ...."

Is he using guided in the pattern or design sense?


dfdfdfd Edit

{{{

On Apr 26, 1:53 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Here is video file 2Gig of Dr. James van Zyl performing healing miracles in South-Africa, it is all in Afrikaans though:

http://isohunt.com/download/183825881/james+van+zyl.torrent

> > > [...] one word can be used in the pattern or design sense as in
> > > "taking a marble out of a bag is a selection at random",
> 
> this has a well defined meaning. It means any of the marbles in the
> bag have an equi-probable chance of being chosen. 
As in a probability sample. 

> > > especially due to the insight that "random" like
> > > "natural selection" has no meaning.
 
> random has a meaning, it's just that NATURAL SELECTION ISN'T RANDOM.
Which depends what you mean with the symbol natural selection. Are you referring to Darwin, because he was interpreted as absolute empire of accident by Charles Kingsley 1863, Chance by John Burroughs and Osborn.

 
> I put soil through a "sieve" or griddle, the soil that goes through is
> finer and has less stones than the retained soil. Is this a random
> process? 

If you have the intent to filter small pebbles from larger ones then it is a directed process. It all depends what you are trying to say. The story is usually told in terms of making a sieve then having all shapes of beans be filtered or retained, preserved or selected on either side(depends what you want larger or smaller beans on either side.)  The words filter, random, selection, retention and sieve don't mean anything hence they can't help you to understand what  you are trying to say. First figure out what your idea is , then use the symbols  selection, filter, design, pattern to try and communicate the idea to me. 


> If you think the sieve is designed then consider a mountain
> stream that does the same.

Mountain streams don't have intent, even though we might say the stream "sieved" the larger or smaller pebbles we would use it in the "pattern" sense, not design because "sieve" has no meaning. Only the idea that is being communicated has meaning. 

}}}


tft Edit

{{{

On Apr 24, 10:18 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Biochemical reactions symbolically represent Life, they aren't life
> itself.  A bridge symbolically represents something other than itself.
> An animal and human in whom is the "breath of life" only represents
> something which is more real. What is more "real" than the bridge
> itself is the partial differential equations describing it in a domain
> that isn't a physical location but a condition of existence.

In the same way what we call electrons, quarks,  leptons and bosons don't actually exist but is a mathematical language like abstraction that induces physical matter. Matter symbolically represents a highly ordered math language, this language is separate from matter like the differential equations aren't the bridge and can't be contained in a geographic location. 

John 1:1 "... in the beginning was Language and Language became flesh ...." 

Christianity is the only religion that says something quantum mechanical math equations confirm. At the quantum world we don't have particles but pure mathematical abstractions. 

}}}


Condition of existence Edit

{{{

On Apr 24, 8:02 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT), backspace
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> 
> 
> 
> >On Apr 24, 6:43 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On 23 Apr, 07:00, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> > On Apr 22, 5:20 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >> > wrote:
> 
> >> > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:11:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace
> 
> >> > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
> 
> >> > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> >> > > > species may be subject to selection...."
> >> > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> >> > > > sense.
> 
> >> > > There is no such thing as a "design sense" in biology.
> 
> >> > Biology is a different symbol for Life:
> 
> >> no. Biology is the study of life. Biology is not life.
 
> >Its semantic dictionary definition is that but English isn't like
> >Greek  one word can be used in the pattern or design sense as in
> >"taking a marble out of a bag is a selection at random", due to our
> >limited lexicon, especially due to the insight that "random" like
> >"natural selection" has no meaning.
 
> So, you misuse words when you want and appeal to the dictionary when you
> want. Thanks for reminding us that you don't take any of this seriously.

The dictionary definition is an arbitrary generally accepted agreed upon coda between a group of signal senders and signal receivers that when a symbols such as "selection" is used it conveys "decision" usually not always.  In the same way that the IEEE 802.3 standards authority decreed by their powers that Ethernet is variable frame rates and ATM fixed at 57bytes so that we don't wind up thinking that Julio cranks his wooden cheese or Green ideas are colorless and decisions  natural or artificial. A decision can be no more natural or artificial than a square can be round. Decision can be hasty,contemplated or sudden but never ever natural or artificial. This depends though what signal sender means with selection, he might not mean decision. 

Which of the following sentences make sense or not: 
1) My condition of existence is either natural or artificial. 
2) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. 
3) My condition of existence makes no sudden leaps.
4) Nature makes no sudden leaps. 
5) I am adapted to my condition of existence. (tautology what else could you possibly be?)
6) Today I have made a hasty decision to drive the car.
7) An artificial decision was made to drive the car. (Could mean forced depending on context)
8) A natural decision was made to drive. (Could mean calm depending on context)
9) My environment or condition of existence is described by my attributes. 
10) Linux is adapted to its environment.
11) Linux is adapted to its condition of existence. 

Even Wilkins has stated that natural and artificial is wrong, it should just be "selection". What he means by that though we have no idea and he doesn't want to talk to me. 

> >The problem of life itself - what is it? You are alive, the very thing
> >you are you can't define, which means that everything you say, think
> >and infer could be wrong.
 
> Life is easy to define. 
Prof. Cleland and Wilkins beg to differ. 

One simple, accurate definition is that life is  a self-sustaining biochemical reaction.

Biochemical reactions symbolically represent Life, they aren't life itself.  A bridge symbolically represents something other than itself. An animal and human in whom is the "breath of life" only represents something which is more real. What is more "real" than the bridge itself is the partial differential equations describing it in a domain that isn't a physical location but a condition of existence. 

}}}


kjkjk Edit

{{{ On Apr 24, 9:15 pm, "Stephen" <ssan...@austin.rr.com> wrote: > Nick Keighley wrote: > > On 22 Apr, 16:10, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote > > > > On Apr 21, 7:43 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 6:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > I don't know where you come off just declaring > > > words have no meaning. It baffles the mind. > > > and he implies that the words "words "have" "no" and "meaning" all > > have a meaning! > > Yes! To communicate at all, he is relying on the words he writes *to* > have meaning. (Though he'd say the words don't have meaning but only > the ideas they refer to have meanings, which really is the same thing.)

And the idea Darwin had was Aristotle's "..... those constituted weren't perishable ......we can see here the principle of natural selection shadowed forth......" , which he represented with the symbol natural selection, because the symbol itself has no meaning.

Thus what does Aristotle have to do with genes as a cybernetic abstraction? The question isn't how did Darwin solve a problem he couldn't define but did Aristotle solve the gene problem. And the answer would be the same one Democritus had for Atoms: The good atom survived the bad one died, which became the Good organism survived the bad one died and then finally the good gene was constituted and those genes not constituted were perishable.

The whole thing reduces to: What happens , happens. This tautology was taken by Blyth, Gill Dodgen and Ken Ham as : What happens, happens and therefore natural selection eliminates the bad ones therefore God still exists.

While the Atheists took the flip-side: What happens, happens therefore the good atom, organism or gene survived by natural selection and therefore there is no God.

Society is caught in an iron triangle of tautological thinking between Ken Ham, Dembski and Dawkins. The only option nobody is seemingly willing to consider is that they are all wrong in their argumentation schema but could have the correct world view: God either exists or he doesn't. Either Ken Ham or Dawkins is correct, but both have a fallacious argumentation scheme. }}}


monkey Edit

{{{ On Apr 23, 2:40 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > JH and Wilkins state that monkey, baboon are the vernacular for > > simian, bonobo or any other primate symbol you would wish to use. IF > > you use simian or ape or "ape like ancestor" instead of monkey you > > have replaced one vernacular for another. > > birds are dinosaurs > tyranosourus Rex was a a dinosaur (saur=soar) > therefore T. Rex could fly

Or as JH puts it " we are apes". But if you shoot an ape you can't get charged with murder only damage to property. Would JH be willing to be charged with murder if he shot a rhesus monkey ? If we are all apes, what concept is being represented with "apes" since the symbol has no meaning. }}}

willows Edit

{{{ On Apr 23, 2:22 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 22 Apr, 15:13, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 22, 1:04 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > > > On 21 Apr, 13:08, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 21, 3:50 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > > > > > On 21 Apr, 11:38, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > What is darwinian evolution? > > > > > > a shorthand for evolutionary biology. Descent with modification plus > > > > > natural selection. Stellar evolution, for instance, isn't Darwinian > > > > > Who did the modifying? > > > > modification doesn't require a who. The coast is modified by erosion. > > > No "who" involved. > > > modification can be used in pattern or design sense.

> says you. Could you define the terms "pattern" and "design", explain > who first defined them and explain he basis for that definition.

Pattern and design aren't defined as meaning anything because they as symbols have no meaning. If you mean who defined the idea we represent with "design" then you are asking me as to explain how the universe came into being: God himself given my religious premise from which all my reasoning flows. The actual pragmatics with your question is why is there something instead of nothing and the answer to this depends on what you believe. The only other premise is the universe made itself, something which can't be falsified or tested.

> Actually more sensibly I *really* don't know what you mean. "design" > is a process performed by intelligence. "pattern" is just laid down by > unguided natural processes. I don't accept thes edefinitions just > wondering what you thought of them.

The symbols pattern and design aren't defined as meaning anything, they mean nothing, thus if you don't accept the definitions of design or pattern you are correct. Only the idea we have with these symbols can be defined. A theist handling the symbol "design" has a specific idea or premise, mind before matter. The non-theist uses the same symbol but thinks that everything he says is an illusion, which means the theist can't believe anything the atheist says. "Pattern" and "design" are symbols like a hammer is a symbol, they only represent themselves as a physical pattern in space and time, they can be used to symbolically represent and idea though which isn't bound by space and time. In one context a sentence would contain the symbol "pattern" but the sentence itself would represent a design.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_pattern > pattern or design?

"..The Willow pattern, or commonly "Blue Willow", is a distinctive and elaborate pattern used on pottery, ceramic, and porcelain kitchen/housewares. ..."

Even though the sentence has the symbol "pattern", the idea with it is design. Which demonstrates that "pattern" has no meaning only ideas have meaning. }}}


lp Edit

{{{ On Apr 23, 2:32 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > where we have Agape having a fixed > > idea or meaning being represented , with Love in English what is meant > > by it can only be deduced from the context. Same with selection > > preservation, retention, design and pattern. The words themselves > > won't help you.

> well I don't know what you mean by "design" or "pattern"

Which is the problem that Ken Ham and Dembski also don't understand. If you don't know what a pattern or design is then one can't deduce whether anything you say is right or wrong - it remains undefined because from the premise of mind before matter there can only be two options : pattern or design. Thus we have these huge meaningless debates between theist and atheists because their premises differ, they have whole different ideas with the same words.

Your belief systems comes first then only your reasoning within that belief system. What you believe defines what concept you have with pattern and design. It seems you believe that all design is an illusion a subset of pattern, that all thoughts are pattern illusions, which means that theist can't believe a word you say. }}}

lkjlkj Edit

{{{ On Apr 22, 11:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 5:20 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:11:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace > > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection > > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a > > > species may be subject to selection...." > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design > > > sense. > > > There is no such thing as a "design sense" in biology. > > Biology is a different symbol for Life: What is Life? And if you don't > know how would know it has no design sense. How did you solve a > problem you can't define.

IN one context "biology" is the study of zoology , genes etc, not a metaphysical question when counting the heart valves of a condor for example. But in another context it is a proxy for Life, since the word biology doesn't mean anything we must deduced the idea from the context used.

Same with calling the Son of God Jesus or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua, the symbol is arbitrary but not the idea. We have for example theologians saying that using Jesus is an insult to the Son of God, which is incorrect as long as signal sender and receiver have the same idea: Rose from the dead, Language incarnate, eternal , God in the flesh, Ruler of the Universe. }}}

lk Edit

{{{ On Apr 22, 6:13 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > backspace wrote: > > On Apr 22, 1:04 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On 21 Apr, 13:08, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Apr 21, 3:50 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > >>>> On 21 Apr, 11:38, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote: > > >> <snip> > > >>>>>> We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational > >>>>>> or just fun. But not if you start one of your interminable > >>>>>> searches looking for what everybody else found at age 12 years, > >>>>>> not if you are going to try again to convince the rest of the > >>>>>> world that words have no meaning and that this is why > >>>>>> Darwininian evolution cannot be right. > > >>>>> What is darwinian evolution? > > >>>> a shorthand for evolutionary biology. Descent with modification > >>>> plus natural selection. Stellar evolution, for instance, isn't > >>>> Darwinian > > >>> Who did the modifying? > > >> modification doesn't require a who. The coast is modified by erosion. > >> No "who" involved. > > > modification can be used in pattern or design sense. You used it in > > the pattern sense, thus you are saying evolution happens by chance. > > Nonsense. Contain a pattern does not imply happens chance by any normal use > of the words. If you want to redefine it please specify such before you > start.

Words don't have definitions only ideas do. A dictionary definition of "random" is still only an arbitrary agreed upon idea. It represents an idea but English isn't like Greek where we have Agape having a fixed idea or meaning being represented , with Love in English what is meant by it can only be deduced from the context. Same with selection preservation, retention, design and pattern. The words themselves won't help you. "contain a pattern" a symbol string implies neither chance or design, only you can imply either and would you the symbols to communicate the intent in the relevant contexts.

> Nice deflection, now answer the question. What do mean by "modification in > the design sense"?

"The japanese engineer evolved a toyota via a process of descent with modification from previous models." This can only be design.

"The process of evolution resulted in the development of monkeys to men by descent with modification. " Depending on what you believe it could be pattern or design. }}}


asdf sd Edit

{{{ On Apr 21, 8:17 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a > > > > species may be subject to selection...." > > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design > > > > sense. > > > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written > > > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes > > > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...." > > > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor > > > some trait or allele over another. > > > Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense? > > No. > > > > > > "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for > > > or against under the conditions that the population exists under. > > > Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense? > > No. > > But the results affect the design (in the metaphorical sense, not the > literal sense),

Because the symbol "design" has no meaning we deduce that design in this context is a proxy for pattern. A design in the metaphorical sense is a pattern. Ultimately for you everything is just a pattern and design an illusion, which means we can't believe anything you tell us.

> which is also a pattern, and also the phenotypic Correct as deduced above.

> expression of the genomes of the offspring interacting with the > environment during development. Interact here is also being used in the pattern sense. }}}


sdf Edit

{{{ On Apr 21, 6:12 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 7:23 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), backspace > > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense > > >that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux > > >isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My > > >premise is that mind came before matte > > > for a guy who's anal retentive on language, you seem to require of > > everyone else what you ignore yourself: exactitude > > > what the hell is 'mind'? > > > r, that my body and grey matter > > > >is a symbolic representation of my soul > > > what the hell is 'soul'? who first defined it? what are its > > pragmatics? > > > >--------------------- > > >Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it > > >but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words > > > 'soul' has no meaning at all. it represents something that does not > > exist > > "Soul" is a quality of music or, in a more banal sense, a _category_ > of music.

Correct because "soul" like "quark" has no meaning, only ideas have meaning and the idea whether patter or design is only something a user wielding the tools of semantics can have. Like a hammer has no intention to strike so a word like soul has no intention: Only you can have intention, only you can tell us patter or design.

The meaning can be extended to a quality of an actor's > performance or even further. In it's core meaning, Soul is not about a > category but a quality. Hank Sr. had soul. Very good explanation for why no word or sentence has a meaning.


}}}

pz post Edit

{{{ On Apr 21, 7:43 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 6:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a > > species may be subject to selection...." > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design > > sense.

> The sentence is self-explanatory. It is prefaced with "In the context > of evolution".

But the context with the symbol evolution(which has no meaning) was Vestiges by Robert Chambers and Dr. Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology with his embrios argument(flawed) in the time era of 1865. Back then those authors were interpreted to understand OoS by a reader: Which author are you interpreting? Because PZ Merkel German chancellor at scienceblogs.com has stated that he isn't talking about Darwin when using the symbol evolution.

Heir griphen Furer PZ wrote: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/berlinski_i_cant_believe_im_wasting_time_on_this_guy "...One we should get out of way immediately is this "Darwin's theory" nonsense. We are not dealing with "Darwin's theory" anymore, but a much greater body of knowledge and concepts that has accumulated in the past century and a half, which includes one huge revision (the incorporation of genetics and population genetics) in the past, and which is being constantly updated right now. It is absolutely idiotic to criticize the modern study of life on the basis of one's misunderstanding of a preliminary proposal published in 1859. But this is the strategy that the IDiots have taken. It is insane...."


> So, obviously, selection refers to natural selection, and neither pattern nor design. What a silly question.

Everything anything we observe or say or do is either a pattern or design. Either the universe made itself or it was made. Pattern or design are your only options, there isn't a third.


}}}

hgg Edit

{{{ On Apr 21, 8:17 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a > > > > species may be subject to selection...." > > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design > > > > sense. > > > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written > > > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes > > > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...." > > > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor > > > some trait or allele over another. > > > Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense? > > No. > > > > > > "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for > > > or against under the conditions that the population exists under. > > > Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense? > > No. > > But the results affect the design (in the metaphorical sense, not the > literal sense), which is also a pattern, and also the phenotypic > expression of the genomes of the offspring interacting with the > environment during development. > > Kermit }}}

You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My premise is that mind came before matter, that my body and grey matter is a symbolic representation of my soul - the real me, which can't die. My soul is like a complex Linux idea neither here nor there and just like "Linux is adapted to its environment" makes no sense so is saying that you are adapted to your environment meaningless. Saying your interact with your environment is somewhere between a truism and meaningless....... because you can't do anything but interact with your condition of existence, which is described by your attributes.


Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words. See this post for clarity http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia.27s_Fitness_article_uses_John_Tyndall.27s_interpetation_of_Democritus

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.