Wikipedia's Natural Selection a Truism reformulated as a Tautology
backspace
".....Natural selection is the process by which favorable ... traits
become more common ..... and unfavorable traits less common ......"
rephrase:
".....There is some process out there by which favorable ... traits
become more common in ..... and unfavorable traits less
common ......"
The opening paragraph is a [[TruIsm]] "...there will always be traits
that are more common...." reformulated as a [[TautoLogy]] "....
favorable traits become more common...." and equated with a logical
impossibility: Natural Selection.
The materialists have decreed that the word selection must somehow be
irrevocably equivocated with materialism. But in the days of Augustus
'selectus' and 'evolvere' had nothing to do with materialism, you
can't hijack whole words in Latin and English and make them eternally
associated with your materialistic world view. Selection
as a word to encode for multiple concepts belongs to everybody.
Rephrase of Wikipedia to cut out the tautology and truism:
There is some process out there by which traits become more common
than others.
Rephrase to cut out the "more common" red herring:
There is some process out there by which traits came to be in
existence.
Rephrase since all animals have traits:
There is some process out there by which organisms came to be in
existence.
What is this process and in what paper did anybody explain how such a
yet to be defined process explained how neural control got to be in
animals never in contact with one another. The issue isn't the truism
that "animals have traits" it how did
the animal get into existence to begin with.
Free Lunch
that he has no idea what he is talking about <Steph...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>".....Natural selection is the process by which favorable ... traits
>become more common ..... and unfavorable traits less common ......"
>
>rephrase:
>".....There is some process out there by which favorable ... traits
>become more common in ..... and unfavorable traits less
>common ......"
>
>The opening paragraph is a [[TruIsm]] "...there will always be traits
>that are more common...." reformulated as a [[TautoLogy]] "....
>favorable traits become more common...." and equated with a logical
>impossibility: Natural Selection.
>
>The materialists have decreed that the word selection must somehow be
>irrevocably equivocated with materialism. But in the days of Augustus
>'selectus' and 'evolvere' had nothing to do with materialism, you
>can't hijack whole words in Latin and English and make them eternally
>associated with your materialistic world view. Selection
>as a word to encode for multiple concepts belongs to everybody.
You are really amazingly dishonest backspace. Why do you insist on
telling all of these lies? Where does it get you?
Dave Oldridge
c4b264...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>".....Natural selection is the process by which favorable ... traits
>become more common ..... and unfavorable traits less common ......"
>
>
Something you have missed about tautologies. They are generally self-
evidently true.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
backspace
wrote:
> backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bf7153c9-e554-4976-832d-
> c4b264266...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> >".....Natural selection is the process by which favorable ... traits
> >become more common ..... and unfavorable traits less common ......"
>
> Something you have missed about tautologies. They are generally self-
> evidently true.
They are not, as I explained on the Wikipedia tautology article:
Tautologies are the formulation of a proposition in a deceitful
deceptive manner such that it's truth is guaranteed. Something which
is true by definition such as "... the sun shines...." is a truism not
a tautology. Tautologies are not circular reasoning either.
backspace
tautology. The real reason it shines such as nuclear fusion needs to
be derived independently elsewhere. The real reason animals are
'adapted' needs to be derived independently starting with defining the
problem description -neural control - in terms of what Life is.
Free Lunch
<Steph...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Again, you insist on being wrong.
First, most organisms have no neurons, so your argument about neural
control is gibberish. Second, adaptation or fit in the context of
evolution is what scientists have said. You, once again, are proving
that you are unable to deal with more than one meaning of a word.
Sometimes, even one meaning is too complicated for you.
backspace
> >The sun shines is a truism. The sun is adapted for shining is a
> >tautology. The real reason it shines such as nuclear fusion needs to
> >be derived independently elsewhere. The real reason animals are
> >'adapted' needs to be derived independently starting with defining the
> >problem description -neural control - in terms of what Life is.
> ... adaptation or fit in the context of evolution is what scientists have said.....
Who did the adapting and what is the context of evolvere - who did the
unrolling? Do you agree that 'adaptation' can be used in the
volition and non-volition sense, in what sense are you using it.
Free Lunch
<Steph...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 30, 4:56 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Adaptation for organisms is not volitional. You, of course, know that.
Are you really unable to grasp the concepts of variation and selection?
backspace
> >> ... adaptation or fit in the context of evolution is what scientists have said.....
> >Who did the adapting and what is the context of evolvere - who did the
> >unrolling? Do you agree that 'adaptation' can be used in the
> >volition and non-volition sense, in what sense are you using it.
> Adaptation for organisms is not volitional.
It depends in what context you are using it. *accumulation* could be
used in volition and non-volition sense as well. English isn't like
Greek, you can't express complete concepts with just one word.
> You, of course, know that. Are you really unable to grasp the concepts of variation and selection?
What would be the concept Augustus had with Selectus ?
Free Lunch
<Steph...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 30, 6:55 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> ... adaptation or fit in the context of evolution is what scientists have said.....
>
>> >Who did the adapting and what is the context of evolvere - who did the
>> >unrolling? Do you agree that 'adaptation' can be used in the
>> >volition and non-volition sense, in what sense are you using it.
>
>> Adaptation for organisms is not volitional.
>
>It depends in what context you are using it. *accumulation* could be
>used in volition and non-volition sense as well. English isn't like
>Greek, you can't express complete concepts with just one word.
Again, when it comes to genes, your supposition makes you look silly.
>> You, of course, know that. Are you really unable to grasp the concepts of variation and selection?
>What would be the concept Augustus had with Selectus ?
>
Your question is meaningless.
Dave Oldridge
f32865...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
So were you born with this mental defect, or did you catch it from some
cult leader?
John Baker
<Steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
<dishonesty snipped>
Why don't you make a New Year's resolution to stop being a fucking
idiot?
backspace
"...The mode of origin of species was practically discovered by Waagen
in 1869, but like the great discovery by Mendel of heredity, this
truth has been long in making its way, even among biologists. Waagen's
observation that species do not originate by chance or accident as
Darwin had at one time supposed, but by a continues and well ordered
process, has since been confirmed by an overwhelming body of
testimony, so that we are now able to assemble and place in order
animals in their true evolutionary succession , extending , in the
case of what I have called the edition de luxe of the horses, over
millions of years. Evolution has passed from the domain of theory into
the domain of natural law. Evolution takes its place with the
gravitation law of Newton..."
This ".... well ordered process...." did anybody have intent? Who did
the ordering. And before you confuse your intent with what might have
been his intent - don't say nobody . How do you know, did you ask
Osborne?
To continue discussion on wikipedia:
The opening paragraph on Wikipedia might as well have said: Animals
are in existence which would be a truism. To disguise the truism the
red herring of "traits becoming more common" is introduced and thus we
have the next truism: "Animals are in existence and have traits". The
third truism is added: "..some of these traits will become " more
common". The words traits,common are an attempt to disguise the
original truism: Animals exist and therefore some yet to be defined
concept which the author on Wikipedia labeled natural selection is
responsible for their existence.
And what could be this concept that this author labeled natural
selection on Wikipeda? The term was coined by William Wells in 1813,
Matthews used it and Darwin and Wallace lifted it from those authors.
Many contemporaries of Darwin claimed to have discovered some concept
which they labeled natural selection independently of Darwin. Then
Spencer came along throwing so to speak a "spanner in the works" by
equating his specific concept of "Survival of the fittest" with NS.
Today hardly anybody means SoF when they say NS, thus we have multiple
concepts many of them truisms reformulated as tautologies implied as
an explanation for everything. Paraphrasing Berlinski and putting my
own spin on his original statement:
This yet to be defined concept many individuals have with the term
natural selection, functioning as some sort of universal mechanism is
just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all
of physics.
"SoF", "you have a green light" , "evolvere", "selectus" are words
and terms that were used in many different contexts to convey many
concepts during certain times with certain knowledge. The flaw with
"natural selection" is using it in a fixed sense like imagine using
"..you have a green light..." in the fixed sense of it always meaning
a physical green light. In the audio podcast Wilkins said that he is
in the "....selectionist camp..." There are multiple concepts one
could encode for with "selectionist" - it is not defined what he means
by this. Your idea being "selectionist" might not be his idea. The
language mess we are in is the attempt by multiple authors to use a
single word "fitness", ''selection'' to encode for a single concept
within their materialist world views. But you can't do this in
English, single words can't be associated with materialism just like
"green" can't be used to always mean the color green.
We define our theories in terms of the problem description:
Two chickens make a baby chicken. This baby chicken implements and
abstract control algorithm namely inverted pendulum control. How did
the two parent chickens
transmit this control algorithm by what process or mechanism did this
happen? This problem description was addressed with the coined term
"micro evolution" which I posted on Wikipedia after Woland did
multiple attempts to sensor the information that the concept a person
had in 1909 who coined the term differs from the concept PZ Myers
might have with the term. The concept is the issue not the term you
might use such as natural selection, micro evolution.
Spencer had a concept and he decided that his concept in 1860 around
must be equated with the term natural selection. We all agree that SoF
as a concept is nonsense. Saying SoF means natural selection is like
saying ".... you have a green light...." always means you are holding
a physical light bulb. SoF can mean whatever you want to make it mean,
but "natural selection" and 'artificial selection' can like a "square
circle" be only one thing: impossible by definition. This does not
prevent you though from using "square circle" as a term and
associating it with your particular concept , but why would a person
do this?
What Wilkins needs to do if he insists in using NS as a term is to
derive his particular concept from first principles and then label it
natural selection. As long as we understand that the concept is
separate from the label , thus Wilkins should derive a new
materialist world view that could even completely strip out all
references to Darwinian terminology. Because his concept given his
knowledge differing from Darwin's knowledge means he can't use the
term "natural selection" since it is so closely associated with
Darwin. As he said ".... there is no such beast as Darwinism...."
Darwinism if defined can have a very specific meaning, presently it
isn't defined. Historically around 1915 "Darwinism" was
uncontentious, used by both sides of the debate.
The Neo-Darwinian theory(used in journals) is now called Modern
Synthesis in just such an attempt at history revisionism.
Evolutionists referred to themselves as Darwinists for example. As a
historian Wilkins should know this and not try and rewrite history.
The issue isn't "Darwinism" but the concept people had with the word
during certain time eras, only recently has 'Darwinism' become an
issue since Darwin wrote truisms ''propositions which cannot be
disputed'' and to save the materialist enterprise they must get away
from "Darwin" and his tautologies. Because the issue isn't Darwin but
materialism/atheism and if Darwin is no longer useful then he will be
discarded. The problem is you also have to drop "natural selection"
since it so strongly is associated with OoS where Darwin used Theory
of natural selection 36 times many of the passages tautologies. This
doesn't mean that the term Natural selection with whatever concept is
intended with it is a tautology, any term can be associated with a
tautological passage. The term NS like square circles aren't
tautologies.
backspace
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:40:52 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >The sun shines is a truism. The sun is adapted for shining is a
> >tautology. The real reason it shines such as nuclear fusion needs to
> >be derived independently elsewhere. The real reason animals are
> >'adapted' needs to be derived independently starting with defining the
> >problem description -neural control - in terms of what Life is.
> First, most organisms have no neurons, so your argument about neural
> control is gibberish.
But all organisms implement some form of control algorithm such as the
flagellum even if they don't have neurons which would make it even
more remarkable.
> Second, adaptation or fit in the context of evolution is what scientists have said.
Other than noting the organism was adapted how was its fitness
measured ?
What are the premises and suppositions with the opening paragraph:
"... favorable traits....became more common, less favorable became
less common....". Lets strip out the tautology and get to the
observation: There are traits which became common. The premise with
this statement is that we all came from a macro-molecule which turned
into the first Living cell. The author who wrote that paragraph is
saying as the traits became more common a human came from a monkey
(vernacular).
This doesn't follow logically. The traits of a certain human race
could indeed become more common but this doesn't imply that humans
will turn into elephants. What is the pragmatics, motive or intent by
this individual who wrote the first paragraph: There are traits that
will become common. His intent was to say the traits of a certain
monkey become more common as it had more offspring and therefore
humans came from a monkey , which doesn't follow logically. To
confuse the issues the red herring of one monkey out competing another
monkey is usually introduced to make the story unfalsifiable. Because
if the other monkey won we would be told the same thing. Both monkey
lineages had implemented IPC(inverted pendulum control) algorithm
which is a layer of abstraction we can at least understand to a
degree. Above this is the more abstract question: What is life,
because the definition of life must answer why both monkeys had this
IPC algorithm. The fact that one monkey lineage went extinct doesn't
explain why it had IPC to begin with or how the first living cell had
the IPC algorithm in reserve for the elephant millions of years down
the line. There is no such thing as a universal control algorithm or a
universal differential equation each creature has to have the
parramaters tweaked. Who did the tweaking ?
backspace
carefully explaining the difference between a tautological expression
and tautological proposition. The problem is with English, it doesn't
allow single words to exhaustively express whole concepts. Our
language have become considerably dumbed down since the time of
Shakespear. It is probably the main reason why the materialists have
been getting away with the hijacking of beautiful terms , expressions
and words such as *micro evolution*, *evolution*, *adaptation* and
associated it with their billiard ball reductionist view of the
universe.
Please visit the tautology article an wikipedia and discuss any issues
on this thread.
Tim Miller
> I have done substantial revisions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
> carefully explaining the difference between a tautological expression
> and tautological proposition.
And, I'm sure, someone will correct them any minute now...
backspace
deriving his principle of natural selection.
=== comment ===
From Origin of Species by Darwin:
Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical
writers (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.
2),
after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn
grow, any
more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of
doors,
applies the same argument to organisation; and adds (as translated by
Mr.
Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me),
"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."
"We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but
how little Aristotle
fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the
formation
of the teeth.), the first author who in modern times has treated it in
a
scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly
at
different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of
the
transformation of species, I need not here enter on details."
==== asdf ====
Lets reduce Aristotle to its core tautological proposition:
(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
"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."
==== asdf ====
rephrase:
"So what hinders the different parts from having accidental relation
in nature such as teeth? Teeth were the result of accident.
And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist
an adaptation to an end by a God.
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."
==== asdf ====
rephrase:
"Wheresoever, therefore, all things together happened like as if they
were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been
appropriately constituted and whatsoever things were not thus
constituted, perished and still perish."
==== asdf ====
rephrase:
"Wheresoever, therefore, all things appropriately constituted were
preserved and whatsoever things were not thus constituted perished."
==== asdf ====
Finally:
"Things appropriately constituted were preserved and things not
constituted perished."
Question: Other than noting that a thing was appropriately constituted
how was the preserve-ability measured ?
'' 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. For each and every
instance of making the observation that something was preserved the
real reason must be uncovered.
Ijon Tichy
> This describes Aristotle and how his tautologies influenced Darwin in
> deriving his principle of natural selection.
>
(sigh)
It seems to me after having read 'The origins of species' that the
author was rather influenced by keen observation of nature. Aristotle
may have been a great thinker, but his observation of nature was rather
poor.
BTW What message are you trying to convey to the world? My impression is
that you try to prove that if you rephrase something long enough you
can produce any ridiculous result particularly if you have a goal in
mind beforehand.
snipped
> Finally:
> "Things appropriately constituted were preserved and things not
> constituted perished."
>
> Question: Other than noting that a thing was appropriately constituted
> how was the preserve-ability measured ?
by survival
an animal or plant is alive and produces offspring -> preserved
an animal or plant is food and produces no offspring -> perished
Sounds fairly simple to me.
HTH
Ijon Tichy
My remarks are copyrighted and will not be subject to anybody's
rephrasing.
backspace
motivate why.
Here is my last revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=265899844
Wikipedia censors the following:
== Example of a tautological proposition ==
''The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.''
:S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
'''Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225'''.
'''Question:''' How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except
by noting that the groups disappeared?
Gould formulated the proposition so that it cannot be disputed:
"''..certain groups were extinction prone because they
disappeared..''" But the real reason for their extinction needs be
derived independently elsewhere. Nothing is explained by stating that
because they were ''extinction prone'' they disappeared, their
disappearance implies that they were ''extinction prone.''
''Extinction'' and ''disappear'' are a synonymous play with words that
alludes to the same fact but masquerades as an explanation.
== Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed ==
There are key passages dealing with Darwin's concept of [[natural
selection]] where he motivates for it by using ''propositions which
cannot be disputed''.
:'''OoS''' For if each part is liable to individual variations at all
ages, and the variations tend to be inherited at a corresponding or
earlier age--'''''propositions which cannot be disputed'''''--then the
instincts and structure of the young could be slowly modified as
surely as those of the adult; and both cases must stand or fall
together with the whole theory of [[natural selection]]. <ref>http://
darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1</ref>
:'''OoS''' That many and serious objections may be advanced against
the ''theory of descent with modification'' through variation and
[[natural selection]], I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to
them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to
believe than that the more complex organs and instincts have been
'''perfected''', not by means superior to, though analogous with,
human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight
variations, each '''good''' for the individual possessor.
Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination
insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following
''propositions'', namely, that all parts of the organisation and
instincts offer, at least individual differences--that there is a
struggle for existence leading to the '''preservation''' of
'''profitable''' deviations of structure or instinct--and, lastly,
that 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. '''''<ref>http://darwin-
online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1</
ref>
The words ''preservation'', ''profitable'', ''perfection'',
''perfected'' and ''good'' are a synonymous play with words that
alludes to same fact as shown by reducing the passage it to its core
proposition which cannot be disputed: Species are engaged in a
struggle for existence leading to the ''preservation'' of those
''profitable'' structures that allowed them to survive.
:'''OoS:'''IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present
individual differences in almost every part of their structure, and
this '''cannot be disputed'''; if there be, owing to their geometrical
rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or
year, and this '''certainly cannot be disputed'''; then, considering
the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each
other and to their conditions of life, causing an infinite diversity
in structure, constitution, and habits, to be '''advantageous''' to
them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever
occurred '''useful''' to each being’s own welfare, in the same manner
as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations
useful to any organic being ever do occur, '''assuredly''' individuals
thus characterised will have the '''best''' chance of being
'''preserved''' in the struggle for life; and from the strong
principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring
similarly characterised. This principle of '''preservation''', or the
[[survival of the fittest]], I have called [[Natural Selection]]. It
leads to the '''improvement''' of each creature in relation to its
organic and inorganic conditions of life, and consequently, in most
cases, to what must be regarded as an '''advance''' in
organisation.<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/11/4011.html</ref>
'''Question:''' Other than noting the offspring survived how was their
[[fitness]] measured?
Ijon Tichy
> Woland is censoring this info labeling it OR - but he doesn't
> motivate why.
>
> Here is my last revision:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=265899844
>
> Wikipedia censors the following:
>
> == Example of a tautological proposition ==
> ''The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
> extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
> extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.''
> :S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
> '''Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225'''.
> '''Question:''' How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except
> by noting that the groups disappeared?
>
An example
The Panda is highly specialized in his diet. It basically lives on a
special type of Bamboo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_bear#Diet
The panda eats what no other animal will eat, which is an advantage,
there is no competition for food. If, however, this source of food
disappears for whatever reason the panda will disappear too. OTOH rats
can live everywhere and eat almost anything. Whatever change in food,
temperature and other environmental conditions may occur they likely
will survive.
There are many species that need strictly defined conditions to survive
as far as food, climate etc are concerned. If those conditions change
they are more likely to become extinct than other species.
I hope this increases your understanding
regards
Ijon Tichy
backspace
> The panda eats what no other animal will eat, which is an advantage,
> there is no competition for food. If, however, this source of food
> disappears for whatever reason the panda will disappear too. OTOH rats
> can live everywhere and eat almost anything. Whatever change in food,
> temperature and other environmental conditions may occur they likely
> will survive.
> There are many species that need strictly defined conditions to survive
> as far as food, climate etc are concerned. If those conditions change
> they are more likely to become extinct than other species.
>
> I hope this increases your understanding
Both the rat and panda implement IPC(inverted pendulum control) how
did your paragraphs explain this in the context of the definition of
Life?
Ijon Tichy
I am afraid I do not see any connection between IPC and the topic of
this thread - I did not explain anything of the sort.
From Wikipedia:
An inverted pendulum is a pendulum which has its mass above its pivot
point. It is often implemented with the pivot point mounted on a cart
that can move horizontally and may be called a cart and pole. Whereas a
normal pendulum is stable when hanging downwards, an inverted pendulum
is inherently unstable, and must be actively balanced in order to
remain upright, either by applying a torque at the pivot point or by
moving the pivot point horizontally as part of a feedback system.
ENd quote
Sounds rather technical to me and, if at all, only very remotely related
to Biology.
regards
Ijon Tichy
backspace
> Sounds rather technical to me and, if at all, only very remotely related
> to Biology.
Biology is a word used mainly for its rhetorical effect. It means
"study of Life" - but everybody from Harshman etc. to Prof.Cleland now
admits that
Life within materialism is undefined - they have no clue what it
possibly could be. Cleland said in the Seedmagazine article that
whatever it is will be a discovery like H2O was a discovery.
rephrase:
Sounds rather technical to me and, if at all, only very remotely
related to FROG.
Do you see how nonsensical the sentence now is because you can't refer
to terms that you can't define, it makes everything you say
unfalsifiable.
It might be correct but until you define what Life is, what you said
isn't even wrong. Do you know what Life actually is?
backspace
It is the same one as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautology_(rhetoric)&oldid=265899844
which Wikipedia is now censoring.
Ijon Tichy
I would recommend that you read something different for a while. :-)
May I draw your attention to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Particularly the bit about 'knowledge a priori' might be interesting. It
is about what we know, how we get knowledge and to what degree we can
be certain about what we know. You will also find there hints how to
correctly falsify or confirm a statement.
Your recent postings have been a little bit inconsistent according to my
humble opinion.
HTH
Ijon Tichy
backspace
> What Wilkins is saying in effect is that because genetics, ontogeny,
> molecular biology, etc. are testable hypotheses, and because natural
> selection is presumed not to violate them, then natural selection
> rules out violations of those natural laws, which adds to its
> explanatory power.
> First of all, Popper was no doubt making a practical point about the
> substantial challenge of pinning down a working definition of the
> causative element, and thus the practical difficulty of natural
> selection teaching us anything useful. No doubt Popper would agree
> that violations of natural law are not available to natural selection.
> Second, with apologies to Dawkins, whom Wilkins cites, I believe a
> moment's reflection will tell us that natural selection does not rule
> out violations of genetics; genetics does. It does not rule out
> violations of molecular biology; molecular biology does.
Thomas Faller replied:
Bait and switch. He didn't say NS rules out violations of genetics.
He said that if genetic change is not possible in _gradual_ and
_adaptive_ steps to get from one species to another, NS will not
allow it. If you have to get from dragonfly ancestor to dragonfly
through a genetically possible intermediate with twelve wings
annd no mouth or legs, it won't happen, even if it is consistant
rephrase1 and strip out NS which is superfluous to the underlying
tautology:
He said that if genetic change is not possible in _gradual_ and
_adaptive_ steps to get from one species to another, NS will not allow
it.
rephrase2:
If genetic change is not possible gradually to get from one species to
another, NS will not allow it.
rephrase3:
If genetic change is not possible gradually to get from one species to
another, Ninja Turtles will not allow it.
rephrase4 to strip out irrelevant redherrings designed to obscure the
tautology:
If genetic change is not possible gradually to get from one species to
another it will not be allowed. - [[TauTology]]
rephrase5:
If genetic change is not possible it will not be allowed.
Final tautological core:
If change is not possible then it won't happen.
We are told that change isn't possible but the actual reason change
isn't possible must be derived elsewhere for each instance of
something not being possible. Telling us that it wont' happen doesn't
add anything to what we already know. Lets presume there were a
million instances in different time eras of something that wasn't
possible for a specific reason. We want to know what was the actual
reason for each and every instance, a tautology masquirades as an
explanation giving one the illusion of explaining it.
backspace
> Final tautological core:
> If change is not possible then it won't happen.
What isn't possible won't happen is an obvious tautology. This
tautological core is ballooned into a full paragraph and associated
with the term natural selection. It could also have been Ninja
Turtles. This doesn't mean that a turtle putting on a ninja suite or
getting naturaled is a tautology.
This is where the confusion comes in. Natural selection is an
arbitrary term that like a Ninja Turtle has got nothing to do with the
tautology that what isn't possible won't happen.
Free Lunch
<Steph...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Jan 24, 6:14 pm, Ijon Tichy <inva...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> Sounds rather technical to me and, if at all, only very remotely related
>> to Biology.
>
>Biology is a word used mainly for its rhetorical effect. It means
>"study of Life" - but everybody from Harshman etc. to Prof.Cleland now
>admits that
>Life within materialism is undefined - they have no clue what it
>possibly could be.
The entire universe is material. Why do you hate reality?
...
backspace
mmmh made a slight typo let me try again:
rephrase:
Sounds rather technical to me and, if at all, only very remotely
related to the STUDY OF FROGS..
Do you see how nonsensical the sentence now is because you can't
refer to terms that you can't define, it makes everything you say
unfalsifiable. It might be correct but until you define what Life
is, what you said isn't even wrong. Do you know what Life actually
is?
When we study a frog we study something that is the result of Life, we
are not actually studying Life itself. The word "Biology" confuses the
cause with the effect. It like allele, genotype, phenotype is a
nonsense word meaningless, undefined garbled confuses the issues.
Bob T.
>
> mmmh made a slight typo let me try again:
Please don't try again. Your posts would be more coherent if they
were entirely replaced by typos.
- Bob T.
backspace
> And what could be this concept that this author labeled natural
> selection on Wikipeda? The term was coined by William Wells in 1813,
> Matthews used it and Darwin and Wallace lifted it from those authors.
New evidence have come to light in this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/aefd3884630a72bb#
that James Hutton in 1794 concocted a tautology that wasn't yet
labeled natural selection. This tautology was lifted by William Wells
in 1813, Matthews , Wallace and Professor Owen also laid claim to
*natural selection*.