John Wilkins on descent with modification
backspace
".........The other well-known objection to evolution, based on
biblical literalism, is a non-starter. Nobody is truly a biblical
literalist or they'd think the universe was shaped like a tent or a
dome with a brassy sky. Not even the weirdest literalists think that,
or if they do, they aren't admitting it in public. If you can deal
with the fact of an old earth and universe, stellar evolution, and----
*descent with modification*----, then you have some answer to what the
Fall might be in terms that are coherent with science, and I have no
objections to your beliefs. Personally, I think it is on a par with
Mormon cosmology and other religiously based etiologies, but I think
none the less of you so long as you accept the facts and don't try to
make me or the children of others believe what you do. It's a hard
place to be in, I guess. Faith often leads to hard places. I hope you
manage to balance it.........."
Darwin:
...Many objections may be advanced against the theory of *descent with
modification through natural selection*. The more complex organs have
been perfected, by the accumulation variations, each good for the
individual possessor. All parts of the organisation offer, that there
is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of profitable
deviations of structure. Gradations in the state of perfection of each
organ may have existed, each good of its kind. The truth of these
propositions cannot, I think, be disputed....."
Darwin:
"....In 1846 the veteran geologist M. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published
in an excellent, though short paper ('Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy.
Bruxelles,' tom. xiii. p. 581), his opinion that it is more probable
that new species have been produced by descent with modification, than
that they have been separately created: the author first promulgated
this opinion in 1831.[1]....'
Descent with modification - who did the modifying? Nobody, how do know
this did you or Dr. Wilkins read the paper by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d'Omalius_d'Halloy ?
Lets do some tautology hunting again replacing natural selection with
Roger Rabbit:
=== asdf ===
...Many objections may be advanced against the theory of *descent with
modification through Roger Rabbit*. Complex organs are perfected, by
the good variations . All parts of the organisation offer, that there
is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of profitable
deviations of structure. Gradations in the state of perfection of each
organ may have existed, each good of its kind. The truth of these
propositions cannot, I think, be disputed....."
=== asdf ===
...Many objections may be advanced against the theory of *descent with
modification through Roger Rabbit*. Complex organs are perfected, by
the good variations . There is a struggle for existence leading to
the preservation of profitable deviations of structure. Gradations in
the state of perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of
its kind. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be
disputed....."
=== asdf ===
..Objections may be advanced against the theory of *descent with
modification through Roger Rabbit*. Complex organs are perfected, by
the good variations . There is preservation of profitable deviations
of structure. Gradations in the state of perfection are good. The
truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed....."
Complex organs are perfected, by the good variations -- Tautology
There is preservation of profitable deviations of structure --
Tautology
Gradations in the state of perfection are good -- Tautology.
"...The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed....."
- Charles Darwin And this tautology was discussed here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/3d05f5581a9a0d5f
Given the above facts what is Dr.Wilkins talking about when he says:
"Descent with Modification" - Modification what?
backspace
> http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/03/can_a_christian_accept_natural.php
> Gradations in the state of perfection are good -- Tautology.
> "...The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed....."
> - Charles Darwin And this tautology was discussed here
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/3d05f5581a9a0d5f
Here is another example of tautological thinking from Wilkins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec04.html
".....Natural selection is one kind of filter that retains whatever is
working better than the alternatives......"
"working better" and "retains" alludes to the same fact lets
rephrase a bit.
=== asdf ===
".....Natural selection is a filter that retains those working better
than the alternatives......"
=== asdf ===
".....Natural selection retains those working better than the
alternatives......"
=== asdf ===
".....Natural selection retains those working better than the
alternatives......"
=== STrip out natural selection ===
".... those retained were the ones working better than the
alternatives......"
=== finally ===
".... those retained were the ones that worked better......"
retained and "worked better" alludes to the same fact as I explained
here on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
".....Tautologies and truisms are used together as a rhetorical device
in a deceptive attempt to argue for a view if it is not possible to
independently establish the real reason for the viewpoint elsewhere.
Rhetorical tautology is a play with words that alludes to the same
fact, but in doing so presents itself as an explanation, giving the
illusion of uncovering the actual reason for the observation...."
And this fallacious reasoning can be traced back all the way to
Aristotle as I explained here:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Tautologies_from_Aristotle
(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
OoS:"So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having
this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example,
grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the
grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they
were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident.
And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist
an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together
(that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were
made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been
appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever
things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish."[4]
The passage reduces to: Things appropriately constituted were
preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished.
Appropriately constituted and preserved are a synonymous play with
words that alludes to the same fact but it doesn't independently
derive the actual reason something was preserved. And Darwin took
this fallacious reasoning into the rest of his book damning humanity
in the process by making everybody insane, because if your thinking is
tautological
you are in a sense mentally ill.
Bob T.
> in a sense mentally ill.
That should be your new signature.
- Bob T.
backspace
=== asdf ===
Such notions might seem fairly straightforward in the consideration of
biostratigraphy and ecological succession in the fossil record, but
how do they apply to evolution? It should first be recognized that
Darwin did not formulate "the theory of evolution" but instead "the
theory of evolution by natural selection." Evolution, or
"transmutation" as it was sometimes called, long preceded Charles
Darwin, the major difficulty being that there did not seem to be an
accurate mechanism to explain how creatures could change over the
course of time. What Darwin was able to discern (and what came to A.R.
Wallace in a fevered dream about the same time) was what we now know
as the theory of natural selection, animals being born with variations
that may be favored or acted against allowing animals with
advantageous variations to survive and be more prolific, eventually
changing in form over many generations. Males of a population of the
Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina), for example, were nearly
wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the males succumbing to the
infection. The remaining 1%, however, had a variation that made them
resistant to the bacteria and allowed them to mate with the larger
population of females, and by 2005 the male/female ratio was back to
almost 1:1 with the males carrying the variation that provided their
forebears with immunity. This is just one example of natural selection
at work, the overwhelming weight of the evidence showing that it fully
deserves the designation of "theory" in the scientific sense.
=== asdf ===
It should first be recognized that Darwin did not formulate "the
theory of evolution" but instead "the theory of evolution by natural
selection." What Darwin was able to discern (and what came to A.R.
Wallace in a fevered dream about the same time) was what we now know
as the theory of natural selection, animals being born with variations
that may be favored or acted against allowing animals with
advantageous variations to survive and be more prolific, eventually
changing in form over many generations.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina),
for example, were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the
males succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1%, however, had a
variation that made them resistant to the bacteria and allowed them to
mate with the larger population of females, and by 2005 the male/
female ratio was back to almost 1:1 with the males carrying the
variation that provided their forebears with immunity. This is just
one example of natural selection at work, the overwhelming weight of
the evidence showing that it fully deserves the designation of
"theory" in the scientific sense.
=== asdf ===
It should first be recognized that Darwin did not formulate "the
theory of evolution" but instead "the theory of evolution by natural
selection." What Darwin was able to discern (and what came to A.R.
Wallace in a fevered dream about the same time) was what we now know
as the theory of natural selection, animals being born with variations
that may be favored or acted against allowing animals with
advantageous variations to survive and be more prolific, eventually
changing in form over many generations.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina),
for example, were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the
males succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1%, however, had a
variation that made them resistant to the bacteria and allowed them to
mate with the larger population of females, and by 2005 the male/
female ratio was back to almost 1:1 with the males carrying the
variation that provided their forebears with immunity. This is just
one example of natural selection at work
=== asdf ===
It should first be recognized that Darwin did not formulate "the
theory of evolution" but instead "the theory of evolution by natural
selection." What Darwin was able to discern (and what came to A.R.
Wallace in a fevered dream about the same time) was what we now know
as the theory of natural selection, animals being born with variations
that may be favored or acted against allowing animals with
advantageous variations to survive and be more prolific, eventually
changing in form over many generations.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina),
for example, were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the
males succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1%, however, had a
variation that made them resistant to the bacteria and allowed them to
mate with the larger population of females, and by 2005 the male/
female ratio was back to almost 1:1 with the males carrying the
variation that provided their forebears with immunity. This is just
one example of natural selection at work
=== asdf ===
the theory of natural selection, animals being born with variations
that may be favored or acted against allowing animals with
advantageous variations to survive and be more prolific, eventually
changing in form over many generations.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina)
were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the males
succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1% were resistant to the
bacteria and allowed them to mate with the larger population of
females, and by 2005 the male/female ratio was back to almost 1:1 with
the males carrying the variation that provided their forebears with
immunity. This is just one example of natural selection at work
=== asdf ===
the theory of natural selection, animals being born with variations
that may be favored or acted against allowing animals with
advantageous variations to survive and be more prolific, eventually
changing in form over many generations.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina)
were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the males
succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1% mated with the larger
population of females, and by 2005 the male/female ratio was back to
almost 1:1. This is just one example of natural selection at work
=== asdf ===
The concept labeled natural selection are animals being born with
variations that may be favored allowing animals with advantageous
variations to survive, eventually changing in form over many
generations.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina)
were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the males
succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1% mated with the larger
population of females, and by 2005 the male/female ratio was back to
almost 1:1. This is just one example of natural selection at work
=== asdf ===
The concept labeled natural selection are animals being born with
variations that may be favored allowing animals with advantageous
variations to survive, eventually changing in form over many
generations.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina)
were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the males
succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1% mated with the larger
population of females, and by 2005 the male/female ratio was back to
almost 1:1. This is just one example of natural selection at work
=== asdf ===
Natural selection is the concept that favored animals with
advantageous variations survive.
Males of a population of the Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina)
were nearly wiped about by Wolbachia bacteria, 99% of the males
succumbing to the infection. The remaining 1% mated with the larger
population of females, and by 2005 the male/female ratio was back to
almost 1:1. This is just one example of natural selection at work
=== asdf ===
Natural selection is the concept that favored animals with
advantageous variations survive.
99% of the Blue Moon Butterfly males died. The remaining 1% mated with
the larger population of females, and by 2005 the male/female ratio
was back to almost 1:1. This is just one example of natural selection
at work
=== asdf ===
Roger Rabbit is the concept that favored animals with advantageous
variations survive.
We made an observation that 99% of the Blue Moon Butterfly males died.
The remaining 1% mated with the larger population of females, and by
2005 the male/female ratio was back to almost 1:1. The actual reason
this happened must now be independently derived elsewhere.
=== finally ===
Strip out Roger Rabbit, Wizard of Oz or Natural selection to get to
the tautology:
..... favored animals with advantageous variations survive..... -
[[TauTology]]
Stating the observational core without anything getting naturaled:
We made an observation that 99% of the Blue Moon Butterfly males died.
The remaining 1% mated with the larger population of females, and by
2005 the male/female ratio was back to almost 1:1. The actual reason
this happened must now be independently derived elsewhere.
Silbert tells us: "....had a variation that made them resistant to
the bacteria..." How would one falsify this ? Anything that is alive
must have some sort of a resistance to bacteria or it would be dead.
Which variation of what gene made them resistant where was the finding
published. Switek didn't tell us how he independently derived his
conclusion.
backspace
Allan Orr.
"....Well, no. What Dawkins actually did in The Selfish Gene was
precisely what I asked of The God Delusion: careful analysis of both
sides of the relevant debate. While Dawkins claimed that natural
selection acts on genes, he devoted considerable time to presenting
and refuting those (e.g., Wynne-Edwards) who championed the opposing
view, that selection works on individuals or groups. Had he merely
told us that those who favor group selection aren't worth considering,
I doubt we would've been impressed...."
The only thing I wish to focus on in the Dennett , Orr disputed over
Dawkins book is the issue of grammar.
"....... that selection works on individuals or groups....."
The sentence like "Julio cranks wooden cheese" makes no sense it fails
at the level of protocol in the same way a communication would fail if
you use ATM instead of Ethernet. "Selection" doesn't do anything it
is word that we use to communicate the intent of some conscious being
doing a *selection" or making a *decision*. The fact that AIG,
Dembski, Ham, Wilkins, Orr, Hovind don't understand this is why
society is going down an ever deepening abyss of mental illness. Orr,
Dennett and Myers all think they are getting naturaled yet they are
fighting like cat and mouse in the most disagreeable manner. Why ?
Because they and seemingly nobody else gets it: Like a square circle
there can't possibly be such a thing as a natural selection and
artificial selection.
backspace
"...By adapting to novel conditions some varieties become more common
in the population, and some do not then interbreed with other fit
varieties, causing species..."
=== asdf ===
"...By adapting some varieties become more common in the population,
and some do not then interbreed with other fit varieties, causing
species..."
=== asdf ===
"...By adapting some become more common in the population, and some do
not then interbreed with other fit varieties, causing species..."
=== asdf ===
"...By adapting some become more common in the population......"
=== finally ===
"...Those adapted became more common....."
Question:
Other than noting they became more common how was their adaptability
independently measured ?
backspace
And note that we must ask what is the whole pragmatics Wilkins has
with the term "more common". He means by this that there were two
monkeys swinging by their tails 10mil years ago who then transmutated
into humans. This is circular reasoning because you don't know wheter
those two monkey bones of 10mil years ago had offspring that made it
to reproductive age. In order to hide the circular reasoning he stated
a tautology.
I discussed this deception in this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/17ea09894319ffec
--"Wikipedia's Natural Selection a Truism reformulated as a
Tautology" ...
which if you Google with tautology and truism you will find here at
nr.11
http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=tautology+truism&start=10&sa=N
out of 34800 hits.
backspace
able to effortlessly identify the truisms and tautologies. I will get
to it in a few days time and go through the passages below on a point
for point basis with reference to what a professor in biology said in
an online debate with a creationist in south Africa on Radio RSG. He
specifically cited Michael Ruse as being very schooled in evo theory.
Trouble is that Ruse in an interview with Dobbs on CNN said that
"Darwinism is the mechanism" a statement that won't go down very well
with John Wilkins who is trying to explain to the evo community that
Darwin was a dunce but can't come out to strongly against DArwin due
to his huge propaganda value in promoting materialism. Especially
Myers uses Darwin for its rhetorical effect, then he tells us Darwin
is irrelevent , few months later what a genius Darwin was. Usually it
wasn't even darwin but some other author such as Haloy who darwin
credited with a specific idea. Nobody is really trying to comprehend
at a very deep level what they are trying to say,they are just using
words such as evolution, selection, modifciation for its rhetorical
effect.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/natural_selection.html
Lecture notes
Darwin's mechanism of evolution: Natural selection
I. How natural selection works
A. Natural selection is really a result of any system that has:
1. Heredity (i.e., the ability to pass traits on to offspring)
2. Reproduction (i.e., the ability to multiply and thereby increase
population size)
3. Variation (i.e., differences in heritable traits that affect
"Fitness" = the ability to survive and reproduce)
B. A demonstration in vitro (Orgel, 1979)
Required reading: Leslie Orgel. 1979. Selection in vitro. Proc. R.
Soc. Lond. B 205:435-442. (On reserve in Bobst Library.)
1. The Qb system and previous observations
a. Variation: Error rate of the replicase
b. Reproduction: Replication exponential with excess enzyme and
nucleotides
c. Heredity: Using free nucleotides and template, replicase
copies strands
2. Experiment 1: Selection for drug resistance
a. Successive transfers of "V2 RNA" with drug (or without =
control)
b. Rates of nucleotide incorporation were measured at each
transfer
c. At different intervals, increase the concentration of drug
d. Successive strains tested for their ability to replicate in
the presence of drug
e. Successive populations also tested for the nature of the
adaptation
3. Experiment 2: The molecular basis of the adaptation
a. Again, selected for drug resistance, but kept drug
concentration constant
b. Evolution eventually stopped!
c. The 3 changes occurred successively
d. The 3 changes occurred reproducibly in the same stepwise order
e. The nature of the changes depended on the conditions
4. Conclusions
a. If the conditions remain constant, evolution eventually stops
b. A population of entities that Multiply, Vary and have
Heritability can Evolve and Adapt
c. Natural Selection produces improbable results (reduces
improbability)
d. The process is analogous to hill-climbing
(See also Dawkins' Chapter 3 for further demonstrations of this
nonrandom mechanism.)
backspace
"I fully admit that there are very many difficulties not
satisfactorily explained by my theory of descent with modification,
but I cannot possibly believe that a false theory would explain so
many classes of facts as I think it certainly does explain. On these
grounds I drop my anchor, and believe that the difficulties will
slowly disappear..." [letter to Asa Gray 11/11/1859]
Darwin is incorrect, not his theory but the theory of Haloy who was a
Belgian Catholic theist - he believed God to exist and be involved in
His creation.
backspace
> "....... that selection works on individuals or groups....."
> The sentence like "Julio cranks wooden cheese" makes no sense it fails
> at the level of protocol in the same way a communication would fail if
> you use ATM instead of Ethernet. "Selection" doesn't do anything it
> is word that we use to communicate the intent of some conscious being
> doing a *selection" or making a *decision*.
> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why doesn't Wallace get more credit for discovering evolutuion?
Several reasons. One, and he acknowledged this until the end of his
life, Darwin got priority. Second, he held a much more restricted view
of evolution than Darwin - selection was all about survival. Darwin
recognised that it was what we now clal fitness - reproductive payoffs
- that counted. Third, he moved to become a spiritualist because he
couldn't account for human intelligence purely by the action of
selection, which was all that he thought was active in evolution.
Finally, his social position as the son of a worker meant that he had
less access to scientific reputation than Darwin did.
"....purely by the action of selection, which was all that he thought
was active in evolution....."
Selection has no action and isn't active in anything - wrong grammar,
the sentence fails at the level of protocol. What Wilkins is doing is
imagine an Engineer arbitrarily redefines Ethernet as being fixed
packet widths every second Router that he builds. The Internet won't
work, in the same way our language isn't working anymore because
"selection" is whatever you want to make it mean after being used for
2000 years form "selectus" to only mean conscious decision making.
In scientific discussion we are not dealing with metaphors or poetic
language ie. "... an angry cloud....." but formal language with
formally defined propositions just as ATM is formally defined by IEEE
standards committees.
backspace
likened to people from say 1000A.D getting into a time machine and
being transported to a Google server farm in 2009 A.D. They don't
realize that the flashing leds and copper wire is to enable the
Application layer or layer 7 of the OSI model. They witness the
physical layer or layer 1 of the OSI model and begins to classify it
based on certain green leds flashing before red leds flash and traces
out all the kilometers of wiring. These people then start arguing
amongst themselves using terms such as "cladists", punk-eek,
gradualism about how one wire linking to another is being classified
incorrectly etc. They are missing the point, a Chicken and a human
unconsciously implementing IPC algorithm by pivoting on two legs is
implementing layer 7 of the OSI model so to speak. The chicken and
human are but the physical implementation on an abstract algorithm
that is independent of the physical implementation.
We have endless discussions about dead bones instead of looking beyond
the dead bones, look beyond the wire and flashing LEDS and focus on
the abstract ideas that is the whole intent behind what we physically
are.
The carbon we are made out of could just as well have been ceramic
tiles, it is the consciousness that we experience that is the real
issue within the framework of the definition of Life - what is Life?
Tim Miller
> The classification and measuring of dead bones by evolutionists can be
> likened
You REALLY need to lay off the drugs.
backspace
The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of
life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs
methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities).
Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of
evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have
their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable
differences are due to modifications in successive generations."[
".... differences are due to modifications in successive
generations....."
This could be interpreted anyway you want. If your are a Gaia
pantheist then it means the GAia nature selection force "modified" by
its powers of getting naturaled and selected. If though you are an
atheist who believes matter came before mind (which means we can't
believe a word you say) then "modification" isn't available to you.
It should be
=== rephrase ===
".... differences are due to whatever happens happens in successive
generations....."
What ever happens certainly does happen to happen as it happens by
happening but this is not a theory.
Bob T.
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
"Conservapedia"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
- Bob T.
backspace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empedocles did not believe that
adaptation required a final cause (~ purpose), but "came about
naturally, since such things survived". Aristotle, however, did
believe in final causes.
=== asdf ===
Empedocles believed that those who came about survived. Or those that
survived came about and those that came about survived.
Question:
Other than noting that things "came about" how did Empedocles manage
to figure out they survived ?
backspace
> Animals can live in many different places in the world because they have special adaptations to the area they live in
Truism.
> What is an adaptation?
What is your intent ?
> Camels have learned to adapt (or change) so that they can survive.
=== asdf ===
Camels are adapted so that they can survive.
Question:
Other than noting the camel survived how was its adaptability
measured ?
wf3h
>
> Lets do some tautology hunting again replacing natural selection with
> Roger Rabbit:
IOW the creationist simply wants to excise the concept of
experimentation and testing in science, replacing it with the
'argument from authority' that led creationism into a 2000 year
desert.
>
> Given the above facts what is Dr.Wilkins talking about when he says:
> "Descent with Modification" - Modification what?
useless question. the real question is
why do creationists think magic applies to the real world? roger
rabbit is another term for 'god did it'
wf3h
> Silbert tells us: "....had a variation that made them resistant to
> the bacteria..." How would one falsify this ? Anything that is alive
> must have some sort of a resistance to bacteria or it would be dead.
> Which variation of what gene made them resistant where was the finding
> published. Switek didn't tell us how he independently derived his
> conclusion.
the genetics of bacterial antibiotic resistance were discovered...as
were bacteria themselves...by scientists, not creationism. creationism
led nowhere for 2000 years. it's a sterile...so to speak...concept
that deludes backspace, et al, into thinking 'god did it' explains
nature.
wf3h
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
>
> The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of
> life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs
> methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities).
> Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of
> evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have
> their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable
> differences are due to modifications in successive generations."[
>
> ".... differences are due to modifications in successive
> generations....."
>
> This could be interpreted anyway you want.
no, it can't, unfortunately. because modifications are measureable.
and the CAUSE of modifications is testable
creationism, OTOH, is not testable or measureable so fails to be
science under any definition.
If your are a Gaia
> pantheist then it means the GAia nature selection force "modified" by
> its powers of getting naturaled and selected. If though you are an
> atheist who believes matter came before mind (which means we can't
> believe a word you say) then "modification" isn't available to you.
can't help you sport. look at what creationists do with data that
scientists discover; they twist it to their own purposes, not having
the intellect to do their own research.
the conclusions of science can be used by anyone and distorted. that
does not make them scientific. you seem to think they do.
wrong.
>
> It should be
> === rephrase ===
> ".... differences are due to whatever happens happens in successive
> generations....."
>
> What ever happens certainly does happen to happen as it happens by
> happening but this is not a theory.
but the mechanism makes it a theory.
that's why evolution is science and creationism is not.
backspace
> Evolution by natural selection = 'descent with modification'
Or whatever happens happens.
> Intelligent Design by irreducible complexity = 'descent with divine modification'
The author understands that "modification" is a word used in many
contexts to encode for many ideas. What is the concept with "descent
with modification" since you haven't read the paper by Halloy 1848 -
what are you talking about. There is no language without a motive, if
one were to pick up a blank paper with "descent with modification"
written on it , it would mean nothing without knowing who wrote it.
That person's concept must be interpreted in his reference frame,
knowledge and time era. I am at a loss as to what tautologies from
1840 ".... those adapted survived and those that survived were
adapted...." has got to do with explaining how an eagle transmits a
flight GPS and MEMS stabilized control algorithm to his offspring.
Dr. Acula
Shut the fuck up, you retarded inbred.
backspace
Mivart quotes and interprets Darwin:
".......Finally, he adds, “If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down.” 5 Now the conservation of minute variations in
many..........................."
=== rephrase to strip out fluff and feathers ===
If it could be demonstrated that ..... organs existed which couldn't
have been formed by ...... MODIFICATIONS, my theory break down....”
=== replace modifications with accidents ===
If it could be demonstrated that ..... organs existed which couldn't
have been formed by ...... ACCIDENTS, my theory break down....”
Replace *modifications* with *accidents* and the sentence takes on a
whole new meaning. Modification is strongly associated with progress,
towards our higher destiny. An engineer doesn't modify something by a
series of small accidents and thus what is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
with "modification , modified, modifiable" . Is something
"accidentable" ? There is no such word in English but modifiable
exists my spellchecker doesn't draw a red line under it.
Intent, what is the intent when Wilkins said "Descent with
Modification" - was he really thinking very deeply like a
mathematician would carefully think about a proportionality constant
or was it just a term used for its rhetorical effect like one would
play a Warcraft role playing game and cast a spell ?
backspace
"....Darwins original term for biological evolution was descent with
modification. Why is darwins term a more appropriate description for
what we call biological evolution?...."
It was Halloy's original term for who is what more appropriate. Who is
this individual and when did he read the paper by Halloy of 1848 and
how did he derive what insights Halloy in 1848 had could help us in
explaining how inputs are mapped to outputs. The "appropriateness" of
using "modification' is it allows DArwinists to sneak in consciousness
by stealth.
Let me ask you a question back: Why wouldn't accidents be more
appropriate than modification.
Dr. Acula
> http://www.justanswer.com/questions/78sh-darwins-original-term-biolog...
> "....Darwins original term for biological evolution was descent with
> modification. Why is darwins term a more appropriate description for
> what we call biological evolution?...."
>
> It was Halloy's original term for who is what more appropriate. Who is
> this individual and when did he read the paper by Halloy of 1848 and
> how did he derive what insights Halloy in 1848 had could help us in
> explaining how inputs are mapped to outputs. The "appropriateness" of
> using "modification' is it allows DArwinists to sneak in consciousness
> by stealth.
>
> Let me ask you a question back: Why wouldn't accidents be more
> appropriate than modification.
What s your intent with accidents? We can't know because you are
making language undefined! please show from first principles what are
the pragmatics with the concept accidents.
backspace
"...In light of the preceding discussion, evolution is a scientific
fact. But it is explained by evolutionary theory. In The Origin of
Species, Darwin propounded two large hypotheses. One was descent, with
modification, from common ancestors, or, for simplicity, the
hypothesis of descent with modification. I will also refer to this as
the "historical reality of evolution." The other large hypothesis was
Darwin's proposed cause for descent with modification: that natural
selection sorts among hereditary variations...."
Is the author aware that it wasn't Darwin who formulated the theory of
descent with modification? Facts seem to be a casualty.
Dr. Acula
The real question being: Who really cares?
backspace
Now you're getting the hang of it !
Dr. Acula
I know. Its really difficult to write in gibberish that has no
inherent meaning and makes no semantic or syntactic sense.
backspace
> On Apr 3, 11:02 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
>
> "Conservapedia"
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
> - Bob T.
I agree the Intelligent Design people are more confused than the
Transmutationists. And if you don't know what that means ask Wilkins
he used the term.
Dr. Acula
But what are your personal pragmatics for "Transmutationists" ?
backspace
This theory is vulnerable at many points. Løvtrup’s bête noir is the
gradualist thesis, in its double aspect of denying the role of
macromutations (or saltations in his language) in evolutionary change
and in asserting that evolutionary change is continuous. Saltations
are well known to naturalists and to domestication. They include not
only ‘sports of nature’ (the two-headed calf), but less spectacular
variations that qualitatively change morphology, physiology, or
behavior. For Løvtrup these variations, which Matthew-Wallace-Darwin
arbitrarily dismiss, are the fuel of evolutionary change. The second
line of attack is to underline the gross unfactuality of ‘descent with
modification’.
".....gross unfactuality of ‘descent with modification’...." was
Lovtrup referring to the paper by Halloy?
backspace
> http://www.darwin-legend.org/html/Soren-Lovtrups-Rebuttal-of-Darwinis...
> ".....gross unfactuality of ‘descent with modification’...." was
> Lovtrup referring to the paper by Halloy?
http://pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000082.html
> The modern theory of evolution - what creationists ignorantly call Darwinism - is supported by a large body of evidence.
What evidence? If only you would tell us about this evidence and start
by defining what Life is.
> You can argue with some of the inferences, but DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION is an observed fact, and scientists almost universally accept the theory of
> evolution as the best inference to explain that fact.
Was the author Matt Young referring to the paper by Halloy in 1848? Of
course not, he was like a Warcraft gamer using "descent with
modification" as a spell to vanquish the creationist demons, like PZ
Myers using his blog as some sort of Never winter nights Role playing
game hurling a ball of flaming fire across cyber space with thousands
of panting hobbits say yea PZ go get em., kill those Creatins because
they can't kill creationists in real life ..... yet that it is.....
> Because the theory of evolution is based on observation, theory, evidence, and inference.
I doubt Young you have an actual theory, you don't seriously think a
Belgian geologist writing a short paper in French in 1848 managed to
explain how egg space transforms into chicken space.
Dr. Acula
You should update your reading list past the 19th century. We know
much of chicken ontogeny now. Here, check it out:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=chicken+ontogeny&btnG=Search
backspace
> > I doubt Young you have an actual theory, you don't seriously think a
> > Belgian geologist writing a short paper in French in 1848 managed to
> > explain how egg space transforms into chicken space.
> You should update your reading list past the 19th century. We know
> much of chicken ontogeny now. Here, check it out:http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a...
It seems none of my posts are getting through......