Random mutation and non-random natural selection covers all bases - unfalsifiable
backspace
two reasons for something to be in existence. We are told about
"random mutation + non-random natural selection" explaining
transmutation. Lets strip out natural, mutation, selection retaining
"random + non-random" or "random + directed" or "non-motive + motive".
An object at a certain place can only be there because of a motive or
non-motive. Thus transmutationists are covering all their bases with
"random + non-random" making their stories unfalsifiable.
The same with Punk-eek, things either rapidly or gradually
transmutated. Punk-eek though confuses the issues since it deals with
a perception of scale and not the mechanism.
backspace
".....Accordingly, natural selection favored genes and gene
combinations increasing the functional efficiency of the eye. ..."
=== reprhase ===
Natural selection favored genes that increased the functional
efficiency of the eye.
=== reprhase ===
Roger Rabbit favored genes that increased the functional efficiency of
the eye.
=== remove natural selection and roger rabbit ===
The favored genes increased the functionality of the eye.
=== rephrase, remove "gene" red herring ===
The favored attributes increased the functionality of the eye.
=== rephrase ===
The favored attributes increased the functionality of the eye.
=== rephrase ===
The favored attributes resulted in a functional eye.
=== remove "eye" , could be any attribute ===
The favored attributes resulted in a functional attribute.
"favored" and "functionality" alludes to the same fact.
Question:
Other than noting the attribute was "favorable" how did Francisco
Ayala determine that the attribute was "functional" ?
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<eda898ab-39aa-41b3...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>Random + non-random covers all bases since there can only be these
>two reasons for something to be in existence.
Well, some try to divide "non-random" into law-like and intentional.
>We are told about
>"random mutation + non-random natural selection" explaining
>transmutation.
What is transmutation?
>Lets strip out natural, mutation, selection retaining
>"random + non-random" or "random + directed" or "non-motive + motive".
Why? You are stripping out the meaning. Why not just say "thing" and
"other thing"?
>An object at a certain place can only be there because of a motive or
>non-motive.
What is a motive? Do you mean intention or force or what?
>Thus transmutationists
Who?
>are covering all their bases with
>"random + non-random" making their stories unfalsifiable.
>
>The same with Punk-eek, things either rapidly or gradually
>transmutated.
Nope.
>Punk-eek though confuses the issues since it deals with
>a perception of scale and not the mechanism.
You, like so many others, utterly misunderstand Punk Eek. G&E argue
that most speciation occurs in small peripherally isolated populations
rather than in the main population. The rate of *mutation* is the
same, the rate of *fixation* changes.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
backspace
> === remove "eye" , could be any attribute ===
> The favored attributes resulted in a functional attribute.
> Question:
> Other than noting the attribute was "favorable" how did Francisco
> Ayala determine that the attribute was "functional" ?
Slight typo let me try again:
=== remove "eye" , could be any attribute ===
The favored attributes resulted in a functional characteristic.
"favored" and "functional" alludes to the same fact.
Question:
Other than noting the attributes were "favorable" how did Francisco
Ayala determine that these attributes resulted in a functional
characteristic ?
backspace
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The rate of *mutation* is the same, the rate of *fixation* changes.
Was this formally established ? Theories are always formally
established, if you differ then motivate.
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<e2ec36cd-40ce-4f84...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
No, theories are not always "formally established". But this does
happen to have as solid a mathematical basis as you could want. Read
up on population genetics to get a start. Some of the biggest steps in
development of statistics was to help biologists understand popgen.
backspace
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> No, theories are not always "formally established".
noshellswell who publishes in biophysics journals says theories are
always formally established.
> up on population genetics to get a start. Some of the biggest steps in
> development of statistics was to help biologists understand popgen.
Popgen involves advanced calculus something Darwin couldn't do, what
then is the term "natural selection" doing in pop genetics.
backspace
wikipedia and it is the same tautologies from William Wells,
Matthews, James Hutton as stolen by Darwin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=269715
"....Therefore, certain traits are preserved due to the selective
advantage they provide to their holders, allowing the individual to
leave more offspring than individuals without the trait(s).
Eventually, through many iterations of this process, organisms will
develop more and more complex adaptive traits....."
=== asdf ===
Traits are preserved due to the selective advantage they provide to
their holders..........
Preserved and "selective advantage" alludes to the same fact:
Question:
Other than noting the traits were a "selective advantage" how was it
independently derived that they were preservable?
backspace
(creationist) spawned the concept of natural selection:
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
Darwin credit Aristotle with having the original idea which I showed
on http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology to be a tautology. Thus
we have Aristotle, James Hutton 1794 which I showed elsewhere wrote
"those that are adapted are adapted and those not adapted are not
adapted", William Charles Wells who continued the same concept as
Hutton, then Patrick Matthews, Wallace and finally our math clueless
simpleton Darwin who stole these authors ideas not giving due
credit.
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<402dc9b5-1427-4442...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Mar 28, 1:30 pm, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> No, theories are not always "formally established".
>
>noshellswell who publishes in biophysics journals says theories are
>always formally established.
Well, give me a link to where he says that in context and I will look.
>> up on population genetics to get a start. Some of the biggest steps
in
>> development of statistics was to help biologists understand popgen.
>
>Popgen involves advanced calculus something Darwin couldn't do, what
>then is the term "natural selection" doing in pop genetics.
Did you think that Darwin was the last word in the topic? Darwin wrote
some amazing stuff, but we have had 150 years to learn more.
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<38573d25-a5d3-45a2...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>I am going through old edits of the natural selection article on
>wikipedia and it is the same tautologies from William Wells,
>Matthews, James Hutton as stolen by Darwin:
Stolen by? I guess every single one of your ideas is either original
with you or you give absolutely full credit.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=269715
>
>
>"....Therefore, certain traits are preserved due to the selective
>advantage they provide to their holders, allowing the individual to
>leave more offspring than individuals without the trait(s).
>Eventually, through many iterations of this process, organisms will
>develop more and more complex adaptive traits....."
>
>=== asdf ===
>Traits are preserved due to the selective advantage they provide to
>their holders..........
>
>Preserved and "selective advantage" alludes to the same fact:
>Question:
>Other than noting the traits were a "selective advantage" how was it
>independently derived that they were preservable?
Are you asking how people figured out inheritance?
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<88fee6f5-347e-4349...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>Here is another interesting link claiming that Edward Blyth
>(creationist) spawned the concept of natural selection:
>
>http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
So? Is this some kind of odd history class?
>Darwin credit Aristotle with having the original idea which I showed
>on http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology to be a tautology.
But it is not a tautology to observe in the world that genetic
differences lead to differential reproductive success.
>Thus
>we have Aristotle, James Hutton 1794 which I showed elsewhere wrote
>"those that are adapted are adapted and those not adapted are not
>adapted", William Charles Wells who continued the same concept as
>Hutton, then Patrick Matthews, Wallace and finally our math clueless
>simpleton Darwin who stole these authors ideas not giving due
>credit.
Yawn.
backspace
of 340 000 hits, read especially what Harshman said about "selection
at random" and "random selection". (The present thread is at Nr.1)
Difference between random and non-random natural selection
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-08/msg01375.html
backspace
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm
An interesting demonstration of how selectus can build on random
variation is provided by Dawkins's concept of the weasel program. Most
people would be familiar with the idea that if you have a large group
of monkeys in a room, each armed with a typewriter, each hitting the
keys at random, that you would eventually get a line from of one of
Shake spears plays typed out. The key word is eventually. In fact it
would take a much longer than the age of the universe to accomplish.
What would happen, asked Dawkins, if you added in selectus? He
described a computer program that would produce a series of random
sentences, then selectus the sentence that most resembled a given line
from Shakespeare ("methinks it is a weasel" was the chosen line, hence
the name of the program), "breed" from that sentences (with random
mutations in the "offspring", select once more and repeat. You can
produce a Shakespearian sentence in a surprisingly short time,
(seconds on a standard PC, compared with millenia for sentences
generated at random).
This is artificial, rather than natural, selectus, but demonstrates
vividly how selectus can bring structure from randomness.
=== asdf ===
> What would happen, asked Dawkins, if you added in selection?
Wrong grammar and abstract authority Mr.Selectus doesn't exist.
Perhaps he meant what if somebody selected for a line from Shake
spears plays after recognizing it
> He described a computer program that would produce a series of random sentences, then select the sentence
> that most resembled a given line from Shakespeare.
This is a grammatically correct sentence, by the computer program
"selecting" the sentence we imply that somebody had intent.
> You can produce a Shakespearian sentence in a surprisingly short time,... then for sentences generated at
> random.
Depends on your intent with "selectus" - did anybody have a motive? If
not then why are you making English and Latin undefined. Because you
are using "selection" in the same context that August used "selectus"
right? Translate the article into Latin and send it back to Augustus
in a time machine, wouldn't he fault the article for incorrect grammar
- what do the Latin scholars around here say.
> This is artificial, rather than natural, selection,
Wrong grammar there is no such thing as artificial or natural
selectus, Augustus would agree.
> but demonstrates vividly how selectus can bring structure from randomness.
Wrong grammar, Mr.Selectus can't bring any structure, it is a protocol
used to encode for the concept of a conscious being making a decision
in 99% of cases - it all depends on your intent and since the general
intent by transmutationists is that there was no intent , they can't
use the word selectus.
backspace
[[FrancisCrickPragmatics]]
"..Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved...."
Source: What Mad Pursuit Francis Crick
Which depends what Crick's pragmatics with "evolved" is. The engineer
'evolved' the bridge means he had intent and he designed the bridge.
See how this game with words is making people mentally ill.
backspace
>Maybe the "fittest" firms survive in the marketplace of commerce ....
Other than noting the firms survived how was their fitness measured ?
> Less obnoxious but still intellectually unhelpful is the loose and uncritical way in which amateur biologists apply
> selection at inappropriate levels in the hierarchy of life.
> "Survival of the fittest species, extinction of poorly adapted species" sounds superficially like natural selection,
> but the apparent resemblance is positively misleading.
Other than noting the species went extinct how did you deduce that
they were poorly adapted ?
> As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species,
> not between them.
He never used the word "differential" in Origin of Species nor
"differential survival" or "differential reproductive success" from
what sea monster "surviving" the sword of a God myth did you take the
"survival" , "battle" , "victory" theme ?
backspace
> Random + non-random covers all bases since there can only be these
> two reasons for something to be in existence.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=97718§ioncode=26
"...Dawkins's arguments are widely accepted within biology. But there
are a few dissenters even within the field, who take issue with
particular points. One such is Brian Goodwin, professor of biology at
the Open University. Dawkins sums up his differences with Goodwin as
centring on the relative importance of the mechanism of natural
selection in the operation of evolution. Dawkins defines natural
selection as "the non-random survival of randomly varying genetic
instructions." In other words it is a two-stage process, the first
being the production of mutations in the genes of every new
generation; the second the non-random action of the environment on
each individual, causing some to die, others to survive, passing their
mutations on to their offspring....."
=== asdf ===
> Dawkins defines natural selection as "the non-random survival of randomly varying genetic instructions."
Strip out survival, genetic and instructions, these are weasel words
to obscure the underlying truism: Things exist for either a non-random
or random reason. This rephrased statement is unfalsifiable giving
Dawkins the illusion of being a genius.
> In other words it is a two-stage process, the first being the production of mutations in the genes of
> every new generation;
The random production with weasel words mutations, genes, generation,
process ...... etc.
> the second the non-random action of the environment on each individual,
Does the environment have intent?
> causing some to die, others to survive....."
Some die some live is a truism, this truism is used to convince you
that monkeys gave birth to humans.
backspace
> two reasons for something to be in existence.
Darwin never said random but used chance, then he clarified it by
saying that it is an "incorrect" expression which makes one wonder if
he wasn't perhaps insane.
In any case the term "random mutation" only surfaced around 1910 and
had to do with genes, something Darwin didn't know about. Remember as
I explained on the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
article: There is no language without intent. Who said "random
mutation" and where was it formally established that mutations are
"random" if mathematically nobody knows what randomness means.
backspace
"...But he does not want to stretch the digital nature of genes too
far, pointing out that Mendelism is digital to the extent that a gene
is either there or not there in sexually reproducing populations...."
=== Truistic essence ===
.....A gene is either there or not there.... - What an amazing
insight....sigh.....:(
backspace
> The largest part of the book consists of calculations of the core claims of neo-Darwinism:
> evolution works by the selection of rare advantageous mutations.
Other than noting the mutations were advantageous how was their
selectability measured ?
> How severe must selection be to have effect?
Wrong grammar.
> His calculations culminate in the result that mutation and natural selection can only find advantageous protein
> variants
Other than noting the proteins were advantageous how did you deduce
their findability ?
Were are dealing with with a major crises in our collective thinking.
This tautological formulation of every single observation has so
permeated our culture that everybody is now mentally ill. From Ken Ham
to Dawkins to John Wilkins ( .... those that "worked better" were
"retained"....).
Paul warned to be wary of those bringing in doctrines of devils, what
we are dealing with now is the doctrine of tautological thinking which
will destroy your mind make you nuts and thus unable to engage a God
who demands you be in your sane mind.
Ken Hams says: " I believe in Natural Selection". Newton's laws aren't
a matter of "belief" but of testability. How does one test "square
circles"?
Tim Miller
> Wrong grammar.
And Irony Meters the world over pin their needles before
going up in smoke...
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<2c3a2a01-0f66-42cb...@r37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Wow, he did not use the word, just the idea.
backspace
In a recent essay in COMMENTARY, "Has Darwin Met His Match?" (December
2002), I discussed, evaluated, and criticized theories of intelligent
design, which have presented the latest challenge to Darwin's theory
of evolution. In the course of the discussion I observed that the
evolution of the mammalian eye has always seemed difficult to imagine.
It is an issue that Darwin himself raised, and although he settled the
matter to his own satisfaction, biologists have long wished for a
direct demonstration that something like a functional eye could be
formed in reasonable periods of time by means of the Darwinian
principles of random variation and natural selection.
"....Darwinian principles of random variation and natural
selection....."
Note how "random and directed" ,"random + non-random" or "motive + non-
motive" is brought in with this sentence. Selection is the protocol
string we use to transmit from signal sender to signal receiver the
concept of directed, motive, intent and consciousness. "Selection" is
not some sort of abstract entity it is a word - semantics, below
pragmatics. Like a king is above his subjects pragmatics is above
semantics.
The concept that anything is the result of either random or
directed,motive,non-random has got nothing to do with "Darwinian
principles". It is a disguised truism reformulated in bogus undefined
"Darwinian" terminology. It is sad that Berlinski and YEC,ID and EVO
fails to notice the truistic nature of the sentence. We are dealing
with an underlying myth of sea monsters being slain by Gods, followed
by circular reasoning (nobody knows whether Tiktaalik had offspring),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism and http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
sealed with a web of incorrect grammar such as Dawkins ".... if you
add in selection...". The word "selectus" can't be added to anything
like you would add sugar to coffee, in the same way that John can't
crank wooden cheese: it makes no sense.
backspace
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> You, like so many others, utterly misunderstand Punk Eek. G&E argue
> that most speciation occurs in small peripherally isolated populations
> rather than in the main population. The rate of *mutation* is the
> same, the rate of *fixation* changes.
Lets presume we find a cow skeleton in the ground and we can date it
back to say 1910. And this is all we know, how do we know the cow had
offspring that made it to reproductive maturity?
I want you to really, really think about this. Just for once actually
try and think.........
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<8b8f6287-23ef-4dec...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Mar 28, 1:25 am, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> You, like so many others, utterly misunderstand Punk Eek. G&E argue
>> that most speciation occurs in small peripherally isolated populations
>> rather than in the main population. The rate of *mutation* is the
>> same, the rate of *fixation* changes.
>
>Lets presume we find a cow skeleton in the ground and we can date it
>back to say 1910. And this is all we know, how do we know the cow had
>offspring that made it to reproductive maturity?
If that was all we had we would not know. If we had 100 cow skeletons
over 10,000 years we could deduce the existence of cows across that
entire time rather than the simply the creation of 100 individual
distinct cows.
>I want you to really, really think about this. Just for once actually
>try and think.........
Why? This is a topic well discussed and thought through. We do not
draw the conclusion that any particular fossil is the ancestor of some
existing organism or even of some earlier one. (Well, we have things
like dinos sitting on nests, we can guess that they are likely the
parent of those eggs.)
backspace
"....You said in a recent speech that design was not the only
alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all
about random chance.
That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense
that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is
anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not
by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes
don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best
at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-
whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the
ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process
that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away
from lions, and fish are so good at swimming. ..."
> Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed.
Mr.Mutation can't anticipate anything - he doesn't exist.
> Natural selection is a guided process...........guided by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process.
It is a sign of mental illness. Some genes survive, some don't can you
think of any other possibilities? This truism has noting to do with a
"directed" process - who did the directing. This is what non-random
means right?
> The animals that are best at whatever they do....... the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes.
Other than noting they passed on their genes how was their 'bestness'
measured ?
> It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, and fish are so good at swimming. ..."
Fish do swim and lions do hunt, this truism has got what to do with a
directed process ?
backspace
program that contains "random" and "non-random" elements. Everything
that is in existence any interaction between anything anywhere at any
time will always be as the result of either consciousness or non-
conscious , either pattern or design. The Atheists are falling into
the same trap as Darwin with his -- propositions which cannot be
disputed --- covering all your bases and making what you are saying
unfalsifiable.
--------------------------
http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=135497&page=48
I would like to present a refutation in the form of software to any
and all claims by Perry that random mutation does not generate
"useful" information; quite the opposite actually.
I originally attempted to contact Mr. Marshall directly with this
software, however my mail was missed or was ignored.
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~cmorris/G-DES/
This software, with the source soon to be opened up after I am done
testing and finishing it, not only uses random mutation for the DNA
changes, but also randomly decides upon 3 environmental pressures
(labeled alpha, beta, and gamma), the drift in these environmental
pressures over time, and what the function of the amino acids are.
However, all of these variables are able to be user-driven. Simply
override the values that exist when you load the page. This gives the
user 100% control over what is going on in the simulation.
G-DES follows the "best" lineage through an arbitrary amount of
generations and proves in a simple and concise way- Evolution Works.
The software uses two and only two concepts; Random Mutation & Natural
Selection to achieve it's results.
Please note this software is in beta, and you might need to play with
it a few times to understand how it works (As I only have the
slightest explanation up there). Any ideas or bugs found can be sent
to cmo...@cs.odu.edu
Thanks!
backspace
> >"random + non-random" or "random + directed" or "non-motive + motive".
>
> Why? You are stripping out the meaning. Why not just say "thing" and
> "other thing"?
>
> >An object at a certain place can only be there because of a motive or
> >non-motive.
>
> What is a motive? Do you mean intention or force or what?
>
> >Thus transmutationists
>
> Who?
it is a word John S. Wilkins used ask him.
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<fcf8f59a-1165-4191...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
I'm asking you for what you meant, not what he meant elsewhere. Were
you just repeating something you did not understand?