Perry Marshall DNA is language MP3 transcribed
backspace
To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
thought.
Can patterns turn into designs. Is dna a pattern or a design?
ATCG letters of the DNA alphabet. It takes 500000 letters to represent
a living organism.
In a human it takes 3billion and there is one of those messages in
every cell. The information storage mechanism of DNA is more dense
than anything we know.
It is comparable to language
* DNA Language
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons - letters
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome - words
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon - sentences
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon - paragraphs
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome - chapters
DNA is encoding decoding mechanism that stores and transmits the
message of the livinng organisminformation. Biologists used linguistic
analysis to decode the human genome. Tools that linguists use to
analyze languages ...... 16.36
What makes a language. It symbolically represents something other than
itself. To have information you must have a transmitter and receiver.
Language has these four characteristics alphabet, grammar, meaning and
intent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics). Genes, computer
code, feromones between insects, dogs barking and human speech have
these four characteristics. Nearly all languages have error correction
or redundancy. English is about 50% redundant. If you can hear every
other word you can figure out what is being said.
Is DNA a pattern or a language? DNA is an encoding, decoding
mechanism. DNA represents more than itself, it represents an entire
living organism.
'''It has alphabet, syntax, meaning-semantics and pragmatics or
alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent.'''
It can be copied and stored in other media without loss of
information. Information is distinct and seperate from whatever it is
stored in. The pattern in DNA is not like a language, it is a
language. Some disagree stateing that DNA is a molecule.
DNA molecule is an encoding, decoding system. You can change the
alphabet and still have the same message.
All languages contain grammar. If I say the "car is red". Is the car
red - that is syntax.
Semantics would be "Did he steal that car" but by changeing the accent
the semantics changes.
Intent: You have a green light. It could mean you are holding a green
light bulb. Or you have a green light to drive your car. Two
completely different meanings based on intent. Intent changed but
syntax and semantics, grammar didn't change.
Information can be stored transmittered by matter such as a book or
energy such as sound. But information itself is neither matter nor
energy. If you only have alphabet or syntax but have no meaning or
intent you have a meaningless sentence. In other words there has to be
other sentences so you can understand what I mean by you have a green
light. 25:32
The core issue for materialism is: Matter and energy all by themselves
can't produce information. Cybernetics is the study of the interaction
between man and machine.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Weiner said: '''"Information
is information, neither energy nor matter, any materialism that fails
to take account of this will not survive oneday.'''" 26:51
Perry draws a three dimensional axis. Matter on x-axis. Energy on the
y-axis. But the z-axis is will. Information can't be created without
intent. There are no examples of information created without intent.
All encoding, decoding systems come from a mind.
The problem with an Atheist belief is there is no way to explain where
the DNA language came from. Because all encoding, decoding systems
come from a mind. The element that is common to both Paley's watch and
life is language.
Life is preceded by DNA and a watch is preceded by a blueprint or at
least an idea in somebody's mind that preceded the building of a
watch.
29.00 David Hume and Paley 30:35
The essential distinction between patterns and designs is language.
Patterns don't have language - designs do. The fundamental property of
all designs is that an idea precedes the implementation of the idea.
The idea exists in symbolic form before it is physically built. For an
idea to exist it must be represented by a language. Ideas allways
precedes implementation, all languages come from a mind - no
exceptions. Therefore a mind designed DNA, therefore God exists. Show
me a language that doesn't come from a mind.
My Comment by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
The irony in Perry's presentation is that he goes on to ask: Did an
antelope evolve into a giraffe. But without telling me what "evolve"
means - no intent - I have no idea. And I say this based on Robert
Sapolsky
Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" Robert Sapolsky p.
73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is
directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than
vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of
my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in
lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong,
you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans
directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern
Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping."
Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success "...Reproductive
success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
a way that they too can pass those genes on."
Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
is no intent.
richardal...@googlemail.com
<snipped> I have no idea. <snipped>
Yup. That sums you up very accurately.
RF
David Canzi -- non-mailable
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>English is about 50% redundant. If you can hear every
>other word you can figure out what is being said.
That claim deserves to be put to the test:
makes language. symbolically something than To information
must a and Language these characteristics grammar, and
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics). computer feromones
insects, barking human have four Nearly languages error or English
about redundant. you hear other you figure what being
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
Inez
> To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> thought.
Really? How do you define Information? And in what journal was this
definition established?
While visiting a nudist camp, I trip and fall, leaving an impression
of my rear in the mud. Does the mud now contain information about my
rear? Why or why not?
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Weiner said: '''
Norbert Weiner? I bet his years in Junior High just flew past.
Slimebot McGoo
OT, but damned funny.
McGoo
Peter Barber
> To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> thought.
> Can patterns turn into designs. Is dna a pattern or a design?
>
> ATCG letters of the DNA alphabet. It takes 500000 letters to represent
> a living organism.
> In a human it takes 3billion and there is one of those messages in
> every cell. The information storage mechanism of DNA is more dense
> than anything we know.
>
> It is comparable to language
Have you ever tried speaking in DNA?
Have you ever trieq speaking in DNA?
Havw you ever trieq gnikaeps in DNA?
Havw wyo ueve rtrie qgnikaep si nDN?A
Havw wwy ouev ertri eqgSTOP
I think I'll stick to English, thanks.
Perplexed in Peoria
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181075216.8...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Is DNA a pattern or a language? DNA is an encoding, decoding
> mechanism. DNA represents more than itself, it represents an entire
> living organism.
> '''It has alphabet, syntax, meaning-semantics and pragmatics or
> alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent.'''
> It can be copied and stored in other media without loss of
> information. Information is distinct and seperate from whatever it is
> stored in. The pattern in DNA is not like a language, it is a
> language. Some disagree stateing that DNA is a molecule.
> DNA molecule is an encoding, decoding system. You can change the
> alphabet and still have the same message.
I think I understand what you and Marshall are trying to say here.
But you are needlessly confusing the medium, the text or message,
and the language. DNA is a medium, genomes are texts or messages,
and the genetic code is a language. In fact, there are several
different languages involved in the message content of genomes.
But that is a quibble. Your main claim here is that all language-like
things involve mind. And you provide no argument for this other than
a simple assertion. You challenge people to provide examples of
language systems which don't involve mind. But that is easy. Any
bacterial genome. Any system of pheromones in insects. The system
of growth hormones in plants. Mind is certainly not involved in
the operation of any of these systems (except maybe the insect
pheromones). They worked just fine before human investigators looked
at them and noticed the similarity to human languages. Presumably,
they operate just fine in the absense of intimate continuing involvement
from any kind of supernatural Mind either. The operation simply plays
itself out purely in accordance with natural law - just as it does
in an unattended computer processing machine code.
So I guess what you are saying is that some kind of mind must be involved
in designing language systems and their receivers and transmitters, ...
or else you are saying that only minds can generate messages. Or maybe
you are saying that only minds can generate messages which make it worthwhile
for a receiver to listen to them. I'm not sure which exactly you are
saying, but I disagree with all three formulations.
Desertphile
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perry Marshall mp3 audio http://1comos.org/ transcribed.
> To have information you need matter, energy and will.
Appears mental.
MPn datacompression removes superfluous data: DNA is stuffed full
of unused, useless, and obsolete "information" because it evolved.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Wilkins
> > To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> > The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> > thought.
>
> Really? How do you define Information? And in what journal was this
> definition established?
>
> While visiting a nudist camp, I trip and fall, leaving an impression
> of my rear in the mud. Does the mud now contain information about my
> rear? Why or why not?
Ummm... where did this happen? Did anyone get a cast?
>
> > *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Weiner said: '''
>
> Norbert Weiner? I bet his years in Junior High just flew past.
He was mostly on automatic, I bet.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Perplexed in Peoria
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181082997.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Norbert Weiner? I bet his years in Junior High just flew past.
>
of his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener
Wiener was the first child of Leo Wiener, a Polish-Jewish immigrant,
and Bertha Kahn, of German-Jewish descent. Employing high pressure
methods of his own invention, Leo educated Norbert at home until 1903,
except for a brief interlude when Norbert was 7 years of age. Thanks
to his father's tutelage and his own abilities, Wiener became a child
prodigy. The first volume of Wiener's autobiography dwells on this
period in considerable detail. Although Leo earned his living teaching
German and Slavic languages, he read widely and accumulated a personal
library from which the young Norbert benefited much. Leo also had ample
ability in mathematics, and tutored his son in the subject until he
left home.
After graduating from Ayer High School in 1906 at 11 years of age,
Wiener entered Tufts College. He was awarded a BA in mathematics in
1909 at the age of 14, whereupon he began graduate studies in zoology
at Harvard. In 1910 he transferred to Cornell to study philosophy.
Inez
> Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> > > The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> > > thought.
>
> > Really? How do you define Information? And in what journal was this
> > definition established?
>
> > While visiting a nudist camp, I trip and fall, leaving an impression
> > of my rear in the mud. Does the mud now contain information about my
> > rear? Why or why not?
>
> Ummm... where did this happen? Did anyone get a cast?
>
segue into asking if his readymades had more meaning after he found
them than before.
Pata...@gmail.com
> Perry Marshall mp3 audiohttp://1cosmos.org/transcribed.
> The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> thought.
> Can patterns turn into designs. Is dna a pattern or a design?
>
> ATCG letters of the DNA alphabet. It takes 500000 letters to represent
> a living organism.
> In a human it takes 3billion and there is one of those messages in
> every cell. The information storage mechanism of DNA is more dense
> than anything we know.
>
> It is comparable to language
> * DNA Language
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons- letters
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome- words
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon- sentences
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon- paragraphs
> is information, neither energy nor matter, any materialism that fails
> to take account of this will not survive oneday.'''" 26:51
>
> Perry draws a three dimensional axis. Matter on x-axis. Energy on the
> y-axis. But the z-axis is will. Information can't be created without
> intent. There are no examples of information created without intent.
> All encoding, decoding systems come from a mind.
>
> The problem with an Atheist belief is there is no way to explain where
> the DNA language came from. Because all encoding, decoding systems
> come from a mind. The element that is common to both Paley's watch and
> life is language.
> Life is preceded by DNA and a watch is preceded by a blueprint or at
> least an idea in somebody's mind that preceded the building of a
> watch.
> 29.00 David Hume and Paley 30:35
> The essential distinction between patterns and designs is language.
> Patterns don't have language - designs do. The fundamental property of
> all designs is that an idea precedes the implementation of the idea.
> The idea exists in symbolic form before it is physically built. For an
> idea to exist it must be represented by a language. Ideas allways
> precedes implementation, all languages come from a mind - no
> exceptions. Therefore a mind designed DNA, therefore God exists. Show
> me a language that doesn't come from a mind.
>
> The irony in Perry's presentation is that he goes on to ask: Did an
> antelope evolve into a giraffe. But without telling me what "evolve"
> means - no intent - I have no idea. And I say this based on Robert
> Sapolsky
> Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" Robert Sapolsky p.
> 73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is
> directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than
> vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of
> my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in
> lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong,
> you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans
> directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern
> Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping."
>
> Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> a way that they too can pass those genes on."
> Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
> meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
> is no intent.
I could define the appearance of tree rings as a language by trees
used to describe the conditions they're in, but that doesn't make it
require intelligent design either.
backspace
> > To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> > The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> > thought.
>
> Really? How do you define Information? And in what journal was this
> definition established?
None because he wasn't forumulating a formal Theory of Information.
And this is according to Perry Marshall - he says so. In contrast the
evolutionists all use terms such as "Darwinian" but don't tell us what
they mean by it and the impression is always created that somebody
else established whatever an evolutionists says as some sort of
eternal law. Instead each of Darwins great defenders would be slightly
more modest and rephrase their authoritative decrees as:"I as John
Wilber in my personal capacity views such and such observation as
being explained by this.... this view need not be true in actuall
reality but needs further testing." In addition it would help to have
a webpage say Wikipedia that formally spells out what each of the
evolutionary jargon terms mean such as: Common Ancestor which
redirects to Common Descent on Wikipedia. So I still don't know who
was this "common ancestor" between man and ape other than some
abstract undefined creature with the title "common ancestor"
When you tell me about the The Theory of MicroEvolution you have to
tell me who formulated the theory. A theory must have an author.
Formal defenitions such as Newtons third law must have formal authors.
If you don't tell me who formally established The Theory of Natural
Selection , then the Theory of Natural Selection is not even wrong yet
- it is undefined.
backspace
wrote:
> The operation simply plays itself out purely in accordance with natural law - just as it does
> in an unattended computer processing machine code.
And until you define for me what "Natural law" is you are not even
wrong. What is your intent with that sentence. Read
Perry's "Green lightbulb" example. "You have a green light" means
nothing without intent.
backspace
> MPn datacompression removes superfluous data: DNA is stuffed full
> of unused, useless, and obsolete "information" because it evolved.
You have not defined "evolved" for me and until you do you are not
even wrong.
backspace
> > Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
> > The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither doeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success"...Reproductive
> > success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> > a way that they too can pass those genes on."
> > Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
> > meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
> > is no intent.
> I could define the appearance of tree rings as a language by trees
> used to describe the conditions they're in, but that doesn't make it
> require intelligent design either.
Thus says you in personal capacity. You should at least try to
motivate what you say. I have tried my best to point out that a six-
year old kid reading "Micro Evolution" on the board gets the
impression of an upwards towards our higher destiny impression of the
word "Evolution". But Sapolsky says "Evolution" could essentially mean
anything either up or down or statis. (Is there perhaps a fourth
option?) So Sapolsky is covering all the basis making his theory
unfalsifiable. It just demonstrates Perry's point: Language must have
Alphabet, Grammar, Meaning and Intent. All four characteristics must
be present. What is the INTENT when telling a a six-year old about
"Evolution" and what is the INTENT with same word "Evolution" as used
by Sapolsky?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 6, 9:26 am, Patas...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
> > > The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither doeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success"...Reproductive
> > > success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> > > a way that they too can pass those genes on."
> > > Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
> > > meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
> > > is no intent.
> > I could define the appearance of tree rings as a language by trees
> > used to describe the conditions they're in, but that doesn't make it
> > require intelligent design either.
>
> Thus says you in personal capacity. You should at least try to
> motivate what you say. I have tried my best to point out that a six-
> year old kid reading "Micro Evolution" on the board gets the
> impression of an upwards towards our higher destiny impression of the
> word "Evolution".
If a six-year old kid gets this impression, he's wrong. And any
evolutionary scientist will tell him that he's wrong and explain why
he's wrong.
> But Sapolsky says "Evolution" could essentially mean
> anything either up or down or statis. (Is there perhaps a fourth
> option?) So Sapolsky is covering all the basis making his theory
> unfalsifiable.
Nonsense. He's just saying that it isn't directional.
> It just demonstrates Perry's point: Language must have
> Alphabet, Grammar, Meaning and Intent. All four characteristics must
> be present. What is the INTENT when telling a a six-year old about
> "Evolution" and what is the INTENT with same word "Evolution" as used
> by Sapolsky?
More irrelevant nonsense. There is no intent in evolution, just as
there is no intent in gravity.
RF
>
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
>The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither does
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success "...Reproductive
>success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
>a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
>meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
>is no intent.
ever read a science book? apparently not.
you're relying on us to educate you. go read for yourself. it's not
our job to talk you out of the corner you've painted yourself into.
'defined by whom' is irrelevant since it's as meaningless as saying
'who used the term 'atom' for the first time'?
creationists insist 'god did it' is science
they cant tell us HOW god did it
they can't tell us who or what god is.
they cant tell us who used 'god' for the first time.
yet they insist science educate them to the creationists'
satisfaction...which is impossible since those folks are using 13th
century logic...such as it is.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>When you tell me about the The Theory of MicroEvolution you have to
>tell me who formulated the theory.
why?
>A theory must have an author.
a theory can have many authors as its modified and changed through its
history. often theories dont have AN author...they have many
>Formal defenitions such as Newtons third law must have formal authors.
>If you don't tell me who formally established The Theory of Natural
>Selection , then the Theory of Natural Selection is not even wrong yet
>- it is undefined.
wrong. absolutely wrong. who invented the idea of 'universe'? who
specified it was expanding? who specified it contained multiple
galaxies? who specified it was space itself that was expanding?
answer: different people did all of this work. and yet it's a fact.
and YOUR idea is that 'god did it'
THERE'S a meaningless idea. you cant even tell us WHAT god is...let
alone who defined god for the first time
your answer fails YOUR OWN test.
>
backspace
doing down. By Sapolsky stating that it is not directional he by the
word "directional" implied the following options.
1) It can go either up or down
2) It can remain the same.
By using the word "directional" in his context the intent of his
sentece implies either 1 or 2. All I want to know from Sapolsky is
when did he make this discovery and how did he arive at his conclusion
and what on earth does "evolve" mean?
> > It just demonstrates Perry's point: Language must have
> > Alphabet, Grammar, Meaning and Intent. All four characteristics must
> > be present. What is the INTENT when telling a a six-year old about
> > "Evolution" and what is the INTENT with same word "Evolution" as used
> > by Sapolsky?
> More irrelevant nonsense. There is no intent in evolution, just as
> there is no intent in gravity.
I wouldn't know since you haven't defined "evolution" for me. Is your
meaning by the word "Evolution" the version provided on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution? When using the word
"Evolution" you should provide a web link to clarify what you mean by
the word. Lets presume it is Wikipedia:"Evolution is the change in a
population's inherited traits from generation to generation"
Using that defenition of evolution you have made a meaningless
statement: "There is no intent in the observation tha t we humans make
when noting the changes in a population's inherited traits..."
Because that is all it is: An observation. What is your problem
specification? You must now specify the problem and then only can you
formulate a theory explaining the mechanism behind the changes in
inherited traits. And your problem specification must use the language
of genes as described by Parry Marshall. Perry didn't specify the
problem, he just gave us the terminological framework in which we must
specify the problem. And then finally can we perhaps formulate a
theory within the materialist paradigm.
Cheezits
>> I could define the appearance of tree rings as a language by trees
>> used to describe the conditions they're in, but that doesn't make it
>> require intelligent design either.
> Thus says you in personal capacity. You should at least try to
> motivate what you say.
If I may ask a personal question - are you a person or a bot? Or do you
have any sort of learning disability? Your posts are grammatically
correct (as long as you don't use the non-word "naturaled"), but they
don't seem to have any meaningful content, or detectable relation to what
came before.
Like I said before - if you want to understand evolution, go observe
living things for a while. DNA is *not* a language, it is a molecule.
It changes over time.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
richardal...@googlemail.com
If it's not directional it's not directional.
> By Sapolsky stating that it is not directional he by the
> word "directional" implied the following options.
> 1) It can go either up or down
> 2) It can remain the same.
> By using the word "directional" in his context the intent of his
> sentece implies either 1 or 2. All I want to know from Sapolsky is
> when did he make this discovery and how did he arive at his conclusion
> and what on earth does "evolve" mean?
In biology it means inherited changes in populations over time. It's
been explained to you, link have been provided, but evidently this is
not good enough for you.
Well, tough shit. It's good enough for the evolutionary biologists who
study the subject, and they can carry on doing their research into
evolutionary biology with a very clear understanding of what the term
means without taking any notice whatsoever of your utterly phony word-
play.
>
> > > It just demonstrates Perry's point: Language must have
> > > Alphabet, Grammar, Meaning and Intent. All four characteristics must
> > > be present. What is the INTENT when telling a a six-year old about
> > > "Evolution" and what is the INTENT with same word "Evolution" as used
> > > by Sapolsky?
> > More irrelevant nonsense. There is no intent in evolution, just as
> > there is no intent in gravity.
>
> I wouldn't know since you haven't defined "evolution" for me.
I and several others have referred you to Futyama's very clear
explanation of what the term means in biology.
What parts of the definition provided in one of the standard textbooks
on the subject don't you understand?
> Is your
> meaning by the word "Evolution" the version provided onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution?When using the word
> "Evolution" you should provide a web link to clarify what you mean by
> the word. Lets presume it is Wikipedia:"Evolution is the change in a
> population's inherited traits from generation to generation"
>
> Using that defenition of evolution you have made a meaningless
> statement: "There is no intent in the observation tha t we humans make
> when noting the changes in a population's inherited traits..."
> Because that is all it is: An observation.
Who has ever claimed that evolution is not an observation?
> What is your problem
> specification? You must now specify the problem and then only can you
> formulate a theory explaining the mechanism behind the changes in
> inherited traits.
In your strange parallel universe, perhaps.
What scientists do is to take the observation and formulate an
hypothesis based on that observation which they can test by gathering
more evidence.
> And your problem specification must use the language
> of genes as described by Parry Marshall.
Why?
> Perry didn't specify the
> problem, he just gave us the terminological framework in which we must
> specify the problem.
Well bully for Perry in that case.
Scientists who actually work in the field don't perceive that need,
and carry on with their research regardless. The fact that this
research has been very successful is testament to the fact that such a
"terminological framework" is unneccessary. Perhaps you should
consider the fact that scientists define the terms they use in the
context in which they use them so that there is no doubt as to their
meaning.
> And then finally can we perhaps formulate a
> theory within the materialist paradigm.
Scientists have been formulating theories for centuries, and have been
very successful in gaining a better understanding of how the universe
works.
So it seems that you are wrong.
Or are you now going to claim that the whole of science is wrong
because of some stupid assertions you are making about terminology?
RF
backspace
> In biology it means inherited changes in populations over time. It's
> been explained to you, link have been provided, but evidently this is
> not good enough for you.
In biology we observe inherited changes over time - its an
observation. I just want to know what has this got to do with the word
"Evolution". Because there is no intent in the sentence:"Evolution in
biology means inherited changes" - the "evolution" part is totally
superfleous. A perfectly normal information dense sentence can be
constructed to express the observation: We observe inherited changes
in populations. Stating that this is "evolution" means nothing if you
don't define for me "evolution". You can't simply define an
observation in terms of an adhoc arbitrary word such as "evolution"
especially if Prof. Sapolsky by the authority of Sapolsky can simply
decree that "evolution" is not directional.
The sentence "Evolution is not directional" has no intent.
Now you drag in the word "evolution" and restate an observation namely
that "....inherited changes in populations occur over time". Nothing
is explained by stating that this is "evolution". You could just as
well have stated that it is "Aztec Cosmology".
And if you differ from me then please tell me who is this person that
has formally established that changes in populations is "evolution".
What did this individual mean by the word "Evolutoin" - what was the
INTENT? What is your intent when you say it is "evolution" - what do
you mean by it?
Inez
> On Jun 6, 12:36 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> > > The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> > > thought.
>
> > Really? How do you define Information? And in what journal was this
> > definition established?
>
> None because he wasn't forumulating a formal Theory of Information.
Of course he is. His theory is that all infomation requires thought.
How is this not a formal theory? Are you saying that he's talking off
the top of his head and it's all a sack of cow potatoes as far as he
knows?
> And this is according to Perry Marshall - he says so.
But just a day or so ago you were claiming that we couldn't know what
a the words "he has a green light" mean without definitions. Surely
that wouldn't be any sort of formal theory of lights, so according to
you we still need a definition of the term "information." And in this
case you are correct, "Information" means many different things and
we've no idea what Mr. Marshall is talking of here, or why he things
his theory is true.
<snipples>
Inez
>
> > > To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> > > The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> > > thought.
>
> > Really? How do you define Information? And in what journal was this
> > definition established?
>
> None because he wasn't forumulating a formal Theory of Information.
Of course he is. His theory is that all infomation requires thought.
How is this not a formal theory? Are you saying that he's talking off
the top of his head and it's all a sack of cow potatoes as far as he
knows?
> And this is according to Perry Marshall - he says so.
But just a day or so ago you were claiming that we couldn't know what
Inez
But I thought he doesn't have to define things unless he's proposing a
formal theory of natural law. Or does Perry first have to define what
he means by "information?" You can't have it both ways, if one side
has to define all their terms before the argument can continue, both
sides must do so.
richardal...@googlemail.com
What don't you understand in the way the term is explained by
Futuyama?
When biologists refer to evolution, that's what they mean.
If you don't understand what is meant by the term, why not read the
explanation and try to make sense of it, and if you can't, ask for
help.
This silly assertion that there has to be a "formal definition" is
patent nonsense. Biologists know what is meant by the terms they use,
and if there is any danger of ambiguity they make sure that the
meaning is carefully defined in any particular context. That's why
Futuyama was careful to define exactly what he meant when he wrote a
book called "Evolution".
Newton didn't define formally what is meant by "gravity". By your
logic, that means there can be no science of physics. Good luck when
you start "explaining" to physicists why they have no science.
Oh, and it's considered impolite to snip most of a post without
marking, especially when the snipped parts demonstrate the absurdity
of your argument.
RF
Inez
"profile" complete with tiny picture that no one but the other losers
who use google groups can see. It's so very worth it.
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nonsense. He's just saying that it isn't directional.
>If something is not going directionally up it is either static or
>doing down. By Sapolsky stating that it is not directional he by the
>word "directional" implied the following options.
>1) It can go either up or down
>2) It can remain the same.
This fails even as an analogy. Can YOU only go up or down? Or can you
also go forward and back or left and right? In the right circumstances
can you pitch, yaw or roll?
But more to the point, when whales evolved from land mammals, was that
"up" or "down"? When Elk, Deer and Moose evolved from a common
deer-like ancestor, was that "up" or "down"? It certainly wasn't
"staying the same", right?
Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution. It
means that there are so many variables that direction is meaningless.
If a species' legs get longer, its ears get smaller, its fur thickens,
but lightens, it can better digest corn and it loses some nighttime
visual acuity, can that combination of changes be sensibly described
as "up" or "down"?
Greg Guarino
backspace
> But more to the point, when whales evolved from land mammals, was that
> "up" or "down"?
>When Elk, Deer and Moose evolved from a common
> deer-like ancestor, was that "up" or "down"? It certainly wasn't
> "staying the same", right?
I would have no idea you haven't defined for me "evolved".
> Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution.
As regards "evolution"? What regards "evolution". I simply don't know
what you are talking about: What is "evolution" - Define for me
"evolution". Lets use the Wikipedia opening sentence of "evolution"
and rephrase your sentence.
Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards the change in
a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. A
sentence with grammar, syntax,alphabet but no pragmatics, no intent -
meaningless. Perry said you need four things for language, your
rephrased sentence lacks the fourth element - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
Or in other words until you define what you mean and specify for me
your intent - you are not even wrong.
Perplexed in Peoria
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181117057.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Until you define 'intent' you are not even wrong.
If you mean by 'intent': 'in keeping with the conscious desires
of an intelligent agent' - then I disagree with your claim that
'meaning' requires 'intent'.
If you want to get rid of that word 'intent', and claim instead that
to have 'meaning' you need to have a receiver whose 'interests' are
furthered by receiving the message and differentially acting depending
upon the content of the message - well, then we may be close to agreement
on the role of 'meaning' in communication. But the receiver doesn't
need to be conscious in any sense.
I'll accept the need for a smattering of something like teleology in
language-like things, but you don't need the full-scale conscious-agent
kind of teleology.
g...@risky-biz.com
> On Jun 6, 5:36 pm,GregGuarino<g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:> But more to the point, when whales evolved from land mammals, was that
> > "up" or "down"?
>
> What do you mean by "evolved" - what is your intent?
You realize by now that there isn't even one person here who doesn't
see your schtick as a dodge.
> >When Elk, Deer and Moose evolved from a common
> > deer-like ancestor, was that "up" or "down"? It certainly wasn't
> > "staying the same", right?
>
> I would have no idea you haven't defined for me "evolved".
Are you really claiming that you don't understand what I mean by "When
Elk, Deer and Moose evolved from a common deer-like ancestor" ? I
don't believe you.
But hey, let's play along. A very, very long time ago there was a
species that had four legs and antlers of some sort. Over a very long
time some groups of that species became isolated from each other in
some way, likely geographically. Over a great period of time, certain
traits changed in different ways in each group. Not, of course, within
the lifetime of any individual, but generation to generation. Some
became larger, some more tolerant of cold, some acquired different
coloring among many other changes. None of that can be described as
directional.
You can say you don't believe any of that happened (incidentally, even
the creation museum seems to think that it did, in a geologic
eyeblink) but don't pretend you don't understand what I mean.
> > Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution.
>
> As regards "evolution"? What regards "evolution". I simply don't know
> what you are talking about: What is "evolution" - Define for me
> "evolution". Lets use the Wikipedia opening sentence of "evolution"
> and rephrase your sentence.
>
> Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards the change in
> a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. A
> sentence with grammar, syntax,alphabet but no pragmatics, no intent -
First of all, I think that is a perfectly fine sentence, that seems to
mean the same thing as my original sentence although it is longer than
necessary. If it has no "intent" then I don't know what "intent" is.
> meaningless.
Nonsense. It expresses the same concept that you are unwilling to
confront directly, that evolution, or less succinctly, the change in a
population's inherited traits from generation to generation, cannot be
described as directional.
>Perry said you need four things for language
I don't know who Perry is, and his name doesn't appear on the page you
quote below.
>your
> rephrased sentence lacks the fourth element -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
>
> Or in other words until you define what you mean and specify for me
> your intent - you are not even wrong.
By any reasonable definition oif "intent", mine is perfectly clear. So
is yours, by the way. One might call it transparent. You are
attempting to avoid confronting concepts that you don't know much
about but are nonetheless certain must be wrong. Toward that end you
employ the rather fanciful notion that words and phrases that are
understood perfectly by every biologist in the world don't meet your
standards for clarity.
Back to the actual topic:
You claimed that:
" the word "directional" implie(d) the following options.
1) It can go either up or down
2) It can remain the same. "
I responded to that, apparently quite effectively, as you chose to
snip most of my argument and throw up your imaginary semantic force-
field to deflect the rest. Here's the bit you snipped:
Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution. It
means that there are so many variables that direction is meaningless.
If a species' legs get longer, its ears get smaller, its fur thickens,
but lightens, it can better digest corn and it loses some nighttime
visual acuity, can that combination of changes be sensibly described
as "up" or "down"?
If you disgree with that, say why. Pretending not to understand my
meaning leaves only two possibilities: that you are dense beyond
imagination, or (more likely) just lying.
Greg Guarino
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 6, 5:36 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>> But more to the point, when whales evolved from land mammals, was that
>> "up" or "down"?
>What do you mean by "evolved" - what is your intent?
>
>>When Elk, Deer and Moose evolved from a common
>> deer-like ancestor, was that "up" or "down"? It certainly wasn't
>> "staying the same", right?
>I would have no idea you haven't defined for me "evolved".
>
>> Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution.
>As regards "evolution"? What regards "evolution". I simply don't know
>what you are talking about:
res ipsa loquitur. i think he's put his finger on his own problem....
hair...@aussiemail.com.au
>
> If I may ask a personal question - are you a person or a bot? Or do you
> have any sort of learning disability? Your posts are grammatically
> correct (as long as you don't use the non-word "naturaled"), but they
> don't seem to have any meaningful content, or detectable relation to what
> came before.
>
He is the Artist Formerly Known as Dale.
Please don't ask if Dale is a person or a bot because then we get into
an infinite recursion, which of course proves he is God. QED
David
Perplexed in Peoria
<hair...@aussiemail.com.au> wrote in message news:1181192263.7...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Cute. But backspace and Dale are almost certainly different loons.
Backspace, by his posting history, seems to be a fairly standard
fundie, though one who has become convinced that evolutionists are
confused because they aren't rigorous enough in making definitions.
Dale is something very, very different.
backspace
> On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nonsense. It expresses the same concept that you are unwilling to
> confront directly, that evolution, or less succinctly, the change in a
> population's inherited traits from generation to generation, cannot be
> described as directional.
This is a discovery and is true by defenition.
This is all we do know. I want to know why this happens. You tell me
this is "evolution". I want to know that other than restating the
observation what is evolution? Why didn't you use a different word to
equivocate your observation with lets say "Pixiedust". Because in the
context of your sentence "Pixiedust" and "evolution" has the exact
same explanatory power - nothing.
> I don't know who Perry is, and his name doesn't appear on the page you
> quote below.
See the first post to get the background to the thread then formulate
your responses in terms of Perry Marshalls
"You have a green light" example. Without this background you won't
know from what angle I am posting.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/3dce2afb3339cfc2/c5d0c7e1fa95611b?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3dce2afb3339cfc2%2F40880a807de0738e%3F#doc_c5d0c7e1fa95611b
> You are
> attempting to avoid confronting concepts that you don't know much
> about but are nonetheless certain must be wrong.
The only concept we have at the moment is that "inherited traits
change from generation to generation." This is a woderful and true by
defenition observation or we would all have looked exactly the same.
What wikipedia is doing is stating the obvious and telling me that
this is "evolution". The sentence has no intent since nobody can tell
who says so. Who wrote that and what was his intent.
> Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution.
"Non-directional" in your sentence has no intent, it only has meaning
as clarified by the author. I don't know what
"directional" anything has got to do with the fact that inherited
traits change in populations. If you don't know how am I supposed to
know? And state what you mean, you used the word "evolution". I am
interpreting your adhoc word as a proxy in the context of your
sentence for the obviously non-disputed observation that inherited
traits change.
What of the changes? You must tell me since Wikipedia has used the
same word you are using "evolve" to merely restate the observation
without providing an independant specification of the observation.
> It means that there are so many variables that direction is meaningless.
Direction is meaningless? What is your intent with that sentence. To
me direction isn't meaningless.
ric...@cbrp.co.uk
> On Jun 7, 4:03 am, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:> On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nonsense. It expresses the same concept that you are unwilling to
> > confront directly, that evolution, or less succinctly, the change in a
> > population's inherited traits from generation to generation, cannot be
> > described as directional.
>
> We observe inherited traits change from generation to generation.
This is what we call "evolution".
> This is a discovery and is true by defenition.
It is true to say that inherited traits which change from generation
to generation exist. As we call this phenomenon "evolution", it is
true to say that evolution happens.
> This is all we do know. I want to know why this happens.
Science can't tell you why something happens.
It can tell you how something happens.
> You tell me
> this is "evolution". I want to know that other than restating the
> observation what is evolution? Why didn't you use a different word to
> equivocate your observation with lets say "Pixiedust". Because in the
> context of your sentence "Pixiedust" and "evolution" has the exact
> same explanatory power - nothing.
If you want to call inherited trait which change from generation to
generation "pixiedust", feel free to do so.
However, evolutionary scientists call this phenomenon "evolution", so
it will cause less confusion if you refer to it as "evolution", not
"pixiedust".
>
> > I don't know who Perry is, and his name doesn't appear on the page you
> > quote below.
>
> See the first post to get the background to the thread then formulate
> your responses in terms of Perry Marshalls
> "You have a green light" example. Without this background you won't
> know from what angle I am posting.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/3d...
>
> > You are
> > attempting to avoid confronting concepts that you don't know much
> > about but are nonetheless certain must be wrong.
>
> The only concept we have at the moment is that "inherited traits
> change from generation to generation."
Yes. We call this "evolution".
> This is a woderful and true by
> defenition observation or we would all have looked exactly the same.
So this is evidence that evolution happens.
Your point?
> What wikipedia is doing is stating the obvious and telling me that
> this is "evolution".
What is obvious is that "evolution" is the word used to describe this
phenomenon.
If you want to refer to it as "pixiedust", feel free to do so, but be
prepared to cause confusion. If you start demanding explanations if
how "pixiedust" happens, nobody will know what you are talking about.
If you ask for explanations of how evolution happens, people will know
what you are talking about.
> The sentence has no intent since nobody can tell
> who says so.
Why do you insist in indulging in meaningless sematic arguments.
> Who wrote that and what was his intent.
An annoymous contributor who was trying to explain what is meant by
"evolution".
What is difficult to understand about that?
>
> > Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution.
>
> "Non-directional" in your sentence has no intent, it only has meaning
> as clarified by the author.
If you don't understand what "non-directional" means, I suggest that
you buy a dictionary.
> I don't know what
> "directional" anything has got to do with the fact that inherited
> traits change in populations.
It doesn't. Evolution is *not* directional.
Oh, I'm sorry: you want to use the word "pixiedust" instead of the
word "evolution".
So let me rephrase it:
Pixiedust is *not* directional.
> If you don't know how am I supposed to
> know?
There's this thing called "language". It's one of the tools human
beings use to communicate. There are things called "dictionaries" in
which the useage of words is recorded so that you can look up words
you don't know. In some subjects there are techinical dictionaries
which record how words are used in that particular context.
> And state what you mean, you used the word "evolution". I am
> interpreting your adhoc word as a proxy in the context of your
> sentence for the obviously non-disputed observation that inherited
> traits change.
> What of the changes? You must tell me since Wikipedia has used the
> same word you are using "evolve" to merely restate the observation
> without providing an independant specification of the observation.
No, it used the word "evolution" as a label for the phenomenon it
describes. If you want to use the word "pixiedust" instead, feel free
to do so. But be warned that it will cause confusion.
>
> > It means that there are so many variables that direction is meaningless.
>
> Direction is meaningless?
Which part of "there are so many variables" did you not understand?
> What is your intent with that sentence.
To explain to you why direction is meaningless when applied to
pixiedust.
> To
> me direction isn't meaningless.
However, in the context of pixiedust it is.
RF
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 4:03 am, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nonsense. It expresses the same concept that you are unwilling to
>> confront directly, that evolution, or less succinctly, the change in a
>> population's inherited traits from generation to generation, cannot be
>> described as directional.
> We observe inherited traits change from generation to generation.
>This is a discovery and is true by defenition.
>This is all we do know. I want to know why this happens.
gee i guess he's never heard of dog breeders. doesn't know forces can
change what traits are inherited...
he's never heard of sex. never heard of death. never heard of
differential reproduction.
amazing...
backspace
> What is obvious is that "evolution" is the word used to describe this
> phenomenon.
> If you ask for explanations of how evolution happens, people will know
> what you are talking about.
No, I am asking for an explanation as to why inherited traits change
in populations. I am not asking for Wikipedia to state the obvious and
tell me that some abstract authority has decreed that this observation
is now "evolution".
Especially given the confusion over the word that Robert Sapolsky
created with his quote in this thread as published in Scientific
American.
The opening sentence on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution -
"...evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from
generation to generation" - has Syntax, Grammar and Semantics. But
without the fourth element Pragmatics it is meaningless as I have now
repeatedly pointed out using Perry Marshall's http://1cosmos.org/ "You
have a green light" example.
"You have a green light" is grammatically correct and has syntax and
semantics. But there is no pragmatics if the person who makes the
statement doesn't tell me what he means by it. I want to know who is
this person that wrote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success "...Reproductive
success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
a way that they too can pass those genes on." Who defined it? That
sentence didn't appear there all by itself on Wikipedia a human being
put it there and he must tell me what is his PRAGMATICS with that
sentence! Are you Evolutionists really this stupid?
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 4:03 am, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nonsense. It expresses the same concept that you are unwilling to
>> confront directly, that evolution, or less succinctly, the change in a
>> population's inherited traits from generation to generation, cannot be
>> described as directional.
> We observe inherited traits change from generation to generation.
>This is a discovery and is true by defenition.
>This is all we do know. I want to know why this happens. You tell me
>this is "evolution".
No. We tell you, over and over again, that "evolution" is WHAT
happens, what tyou would call the "observation". Mutation and Natural
Selection are among the most important mechanisms that describe HOW it
happens.
>I want to know that other than restating the
>observation what is evolution? Why didn't you use a different word to
>equivocate your observation with lets say "Pixiedust". Because in the
>context of your sentence "Pixiedust" and "evolution" has the exact
>same explanatory power - nothing.
One word never has any "explanatory power". You might as well claim
that the "U" in the middle of the word ha no explanatory power.
Evolution is the phenomenon,. Mutation (of various sorts) provides the
source of variability. Natural Selection "filters" those variations.
>> I don't know who Perry is, and his name doesn't appear on the page you
>> quote below.
>See the first post to get the background to the thread then formulate
>your responses in terms of Perry Marshalls
>"You have a green light" example. Without this background you won't
>know from what angle I am posting.
But you have no such real confusion, unless you snip all of the
context from my post.
Jim Willemin
@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
But in order to tell you about the 'pragmatics' of a sentence, we need to
use sentences, which in turn contain pragmatics of which you are unaware,
and need explanation, which requires the use of more sentences, with
unknown pragmatics, and so on ad absurdum. You can play that game forever,
which leads me to suspect that you really don't care a rat's ass about
learning anything, but rather have found a way to 'win' debates with those
who don't have time to educate you from the grunting stage up. I hope you
enjoy yourself.
ric...@cbrp.co.uk
> On Jun 7, 10:15 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:> What is obvious is that "evolution" is the word used to describe this
> > phenomenon.
>
> Decreed by who's authority - says who?
It's not decreed, or decided by any authority. It's the way the term
is used in evolutionary biology. Futuyama's explanation of what it
means is very clear. If you have any problem in understanding the
meaning, feel free to ask for help.
If you want to call this process "pixiedust", go ahead but be prepared
to be misunderstood.
>
> > If you ask for explanations of how evolution happens, people will know
> > what you are talking about.
>
> No, I am asking for an explanation as to why inherited traits change
> in populations.
Do some research into evolutionary theory. Of course, you do some
research about pixiedust theory if you prefer, but be prepared for an
unsatifactory outcome.
> I am not asking for Wikipedia to state the obvious and
> tell me that some abstract authority has decreed that this observation
> is now "evolution".
This observation has been called evolution for a century and a half at
least. If you want to call it "pixiedust", feel free to do so. Nobody
will understand what you mean, but that will not affect the fact that
it happens and accounts for the variety of living organisms we see on
the planet.
> Especially given the confusion over the word that Robert Sapolsky
> created with his quote in this thread as published in Scientific
> American.
>
> The opening sentence onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution-
> "...evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from
> generation to generation" - has Syntax, Grammar and Semantics. But
> without the fourth element Pragmatics it is meaningless as I have now
> repeatedly pointed out using Perry Marshall'shttp://1cosmos.org/"You
> have a green light" example.
I can only imagine that you are very, very determined to be
"confused".
>
> "You have a green light" is grammatically correct and has syntax and
> semantics. But there is no pragmatics if the person who makes the
> statement doesn't tell me what he means by it. I want to know who is
> this person that wrotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success"...Reproductive
> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> a way that they too can pass those genes on." Who defined it? That
> sentence didn't appear there all by itself on Wikipedia a human being
> put it there and he must tell me what is his PRAGMATICS with that
> sentence! Are you Evolutionists really this stupid?
Oh, I doubt if any "evolutionist" can hold a candle to you in that
department.
Words in any language are not defined by authority. They are
established by use. That applies in science as in normal speech. The
meanings of words may change, and terms may be coined but then fall
out of use. This is why scientists try to be very clear about the
meanings of the terms they use, and if there is any potential
confusion clarify what they mean in the preamble to any paper.
The meaning of the word "evolution" in science is established by
useage, and no biologist is in any doubt as to the meaning of the
term, or the phenomenon which it labels. Different people may use a
different form of words in describing what is meant by the term, but
they are all essentially the same when it comes to biology.
I know that you will still pretend to be confused by this, but you are
fooling nobody but yourself if you think that there is any validity
whatsoever in your arguments. You are as ignorant of the nature of
language as you are of the nature of science in general and
evolutionary science in particular, and all you are doing in these
posts is to draw attention to your ignorance and dogmatic refusal to
learn.
Fine. That's your choice. As one of my reasons for posting here is to
expose the stupidity and dishonesty of creationists, please carry on
in this vein. You help is greatly appreciated./
RF
Cheezits
[the same nonsense all over again]
I guess this answers my question. :-D
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 4:03 am, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nonsense. It expresses the same concept that you are unwilling to
>> confront directly, that evolution, or less succinctly, the change in a
>> population's inherited traits from generation to generation, cannot be
>> described as directional.
> We observe inherited traits change from generation to generation.
>This is a discovery and is true by defenition.
>This is all we do know. I want to know why this happens. You tell me
>this is "evolution".
No. We tell you, over and over again, that "evolution" is WHAT
happens, what you would call the "observation". Mutation and Natural
Selection are among the most important mechanisms that describe HOW it
happens.
>I want to know that other than restating the
>observation what is evolution? Why didn't you use a different word to
>equivocate your observation with lets say "Pixiedust". Because in the
>context of your sentence "Pixiedust" and "evolution" has the exact
>same explanatory power - nothing.
One word never has any "explanatory power". You might as well claim
that the "u" in the middle of the word has no explanatory power.
Evolution is the phenomenon,. Mutation (of various sorts) provides the
source of variability. Natural Selection "filters" those variations.
>> I don't know who Perry is, and his name doesn't appear on the page you
>> quote below.
>See the first post to get the background to the thread then formulate
>your responses in terms of Perry Marshalls
Now you're telling me how I must formulate my responses in order to
meet YOUR requirements?
>"You have a green light" example. Without this background you won't
>know from what angle I am posting.
But you have no such real confusion, unless you snip all of the
context from my post. I gave you a simple, one might say cartoonish,
description of what I was talking about. You snipped it. Do you think
that makes it disappear?
So here's what I wrote:
----------------------------------------------
Are you really claiming that you don't understand what I mean by "When
Elk, Deer and Moose evolved from a common deer-like ancestor" ? I
don't believe you.
But hey, let's play along. A very, very long time ago there was a
species that had four legs and antlers of some sort. Over a very long
time some groups of that species became isolated from each other in
some way, likely geographically. Over a great period of time, certain
traits changed in different ways in each group. Not, of course, within
the lifetime of any individual, but generation to generation. Some
became larger, some more tolerant of cold, some acquired different
coloring among many other changes. None of that can be described as
directional.
You can say you don't believe any of that happened (incidentally, even
the creation museum seems to think that it did, in a geologic
eyeblink) but don't pretend you don't understand what I mean.
-----------------------------------------
There's no obvious way to mistake my meaning or "intent" in the
paragraphs above, is there? Or will you just snip it again, confirming
that you simply have no argument at all?
Let's continue:
-----------------------------------------
> > Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution.
>
> As regards "evolution"? What regards "evolution". I simply don't know
> what you are talking about: What is "evolution" - Define for me
> "evolution". Lets use the Wikipedia opening sentence of "evolution"
> and rephrase your sentence.
>
> Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards the change in
> a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. A
> sentence with grammar, syntax,alphabet but no pragmatics, no intent -
First of all, I think that is a perfectly fine sentence, that seems to
mean the same thing as my original sentence although it is longer than
necessary. If it has no "intent" then I don't know what "intent" is.
> meaningless.
Nonsense. It expresses the same concept that you are unwilling to
confront directly, that evolution, or less succinctly, the change in a
population's inherited traits from generation to generation, cannot be
described as directional.
---------------------------------------------
Any response to that?
How about a response on the actual topic of directionality. Let's go
back to the snipped material:
---------------------------------------------
Non-directional doesn't imply standing still as regards evolution. It
means that there are so many variables that direction is meaningless.
If a species' legs get longer, its ears get smaller, its fur thickens,
but lightens, it can better digest corn and it loses some nighttime
visual acuity, can that combination of changes be sensibly described
as "up" or "down"?
If you disgree with that, say why. Pretending not to understand my
meaning leaves only two possibilities: that you are dense beyond
imagination, or (more likely) just lying.
---------------------------------------------
>> It means that there are so many variables that direction is meaningless.
>Direction is meaningless? What is your intent with that sentence. To
>me direction isn't meaningless.
Look at the examples I gave. Is there any way to describe that
collection of changes as directional? If not, the concept has no
meaning. If the variables include leg length, ear size, nighttime
visual acuity, fur thickness and color and ability to digest corn can
YOU come up with a way to ascribe directionality to the process?
Greg Guarino
Greg Guarino
Greg Guarino
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:12:17 GMT, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Scooter the Mighty
> "profile" complete with tiny picture that no one but the other losers
> who use google groups can see. It's so very worth it.
>
Puppet_Sock
> On the one hand it doesn't work, but on the other you can write a
> "profile" complete with tiny picture that no one but the other losers
> who use google groups can see. It's so very worth it.
Those can't possibly be real!
Socks
Inez
> On Jun 6, 10:42 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On the one hand it doesn't work, but on the other you can write a
> > "profile" complete with tiny picture that no one but the other losers
> > who use google groups can see. It's so very worth it.
>
> [snip]
>
> Those can't possibly be real!
> Socks
I hope Ming the Merciless lets you off the Island of Ironing Board
Women some day if small C-cups blow you away. Or then again, maybe
you should stay there.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 10:15 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
>> What is obvious is that "evolution" is the word used to describe this
>> phenomenon.
>Decreed by who's authority - says who?
>
>> If you ask for explanations of how evolution happens, people will know
>> what you are talking about.
>No, I am asking for an explanation as to why inherited traits change
>in populations.
ever hear of 'death'? ever hear of 'math'? put 'em together and they
tell you why inherited traits change.
John Wilkins
Math doesn't kill people. Math teachers kill people...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Lt. 'Bat' Guano
> On Jun 7, 10:15 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:> What is obvious is that "evolution" is the word used to describe this
> > phenomenon.
>
> Decreed by who's authority - says who?
>
> > If you ask for explanations of how evolution happens, people will know
> > what you are talking about.
>
> No, I am asking for an explanation as to why inherited traits change
> in populations. I am not asking for Wikipedia to state the obvious and
> tell me that some abstract authority has decreed that this observation
> is now "evolution".
> Especially given the confusion over the word that Robert Sapolsky
> created with his quote in this thread as published in Scientific
> American.
>
> The opening sentence onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution-
> "...evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from
> generation to generation" - has Syntax, Grammar and Semantics. But
> without the fourth element Pragmatics it is meaningless as I have now
> have a green light" example.
>
> "You have a green light" is grammatically correct and has syntax and
> semantics. But there is no pragmatics if the person who makes the
> statement doesn't tell me what he means by it. I want to know who is
> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> a way that they too can pass those genes on." Who defined it? That
> sentence didn't appear there all by itself on Wikipedia a human being
> put it there and he must tell me what is his PRAGMATICS with that
> sentence! Are you Evolutionists really this stupid?
And are you a thirteen-something whom, in your young bliss that the
world's reality seems to only be fertile only around incredible ego?
It is very clever that you can take old lessons and apply them (no
matter how immoral the manner in which they are used), but cleverness
is not exclusive to truths or lies. In fact, I can recall his Holiness
the Dalia Lama commenting on how a person may be, "too clever."
However, that may be giving you too much credit. For you haven't done
anything with this sophism. Even the original sophists used their
skills to earn/steal money. Evidently, if you were nearly as skilled
as you think are, then you would be way up there on one of those
material ladders. Regardless, your haven't even bothered climbing up
the steps relevant to actual intelligence and awareness, for you seem
to ignore anything that happens to be uncomfortable. Believe it or
not, but Victorians first rejected evolution on the basis that it was
very merciless in practice by the natural forces at work. How could
God be so unkind?
Grow up. After giving it some thought, even if you aren't a thirteen-
something know it all, your brain never made it past thirteen.
Although this *does* give us all interesting comic relief in a rather
depressing world.
Would it be too OT to mention the Russian government tested a new
multiple warhead missile?
backspace
> The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither does
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success "...Reproductive
> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> a way that they too can pass those genes on."
> meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
> is no intent.
Taking this line of argument further:
=== Two versions of Evolution ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
1)"..Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population
from generation to generation."
I presume they mean the animal still remains the same species?
2) The other version of evolution tells us that we "evolved" from a
single cell bacterium or something like that. But in this version a
species transmutates as Darwin put it into another species.
All we have ever observed is species stasis. Now what version of
evolution is Wikipedia talking about? They don't say merely use a
word - evolution - and the sentence has no pragmatics, no intent: It
is meaningless if the author who wrote that don't tell me what he
meant by "evolution".
backspace
> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> a way that they too can pass those genes on."
> Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
> meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
> is no intent.
Sorry I posted a new topic instead of replying to this thread ignore
the other thread please:
=== Two versions of Evolution ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
1)"..Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population
from generation to generation."
I presume they mean the animal still remains the same species?
2) The other version of evolution tells us that we "evolved" from a
single cell bacterium or something like that. But in this version a
species transmutated as Darwin put it into another species.
All we have ever observed is species stasis. Now what version of
evolution is Wikipedia talking about? They don't say merely use a word
- evolution - thus the sentence has no pragmatics, no intent: It is
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
> > The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither doeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success"...Reproductive
> > success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> > a way that they too can pass those genes on."
> > Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
> > meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
> > is no intent.
>
> Sorry I posted a new topic instead of replying to this thread ignore
> the other thread please:
>
> 1)"..Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population
> from generation to generation."
> I presume they mean the animal still remains the same species?
>
You presume incorrectly.
> 2) The other version of evolution tells us that we "evolved" from a
> single cell bacterium or something like that. But in this version a
> species transmutated as Darwin put it into another species.
This is exactly the same process.
>
> All we have ever observed is species stasis.
Nonsense. We have observed changes in populations both below and above
the level of speciation. There is a very extensive literature on the
subject.
> Now what version of
> evolution is Wikipedia talking about?
There is only one version in this context.
> They don't say merely use a word
> - evolution - thus the sentence has no pragmatics, no intent: It is
> meaningless if the author who wrote that don't tell me what he meant
> by "evolution".
The first sentence of the article reads "in biology, evolution is the
change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to
generation".
That's what the author means by "evolution".
What part of that don't you understand?
It seems very clear to me, but then I don't have a desperate need to
be confused. Does it not occur to you that you are making yourself,
and by association other creationists, look both stupid and dishonest.
It's no problem to me if that's what you want to do. As I have stated
repeatedly, one of my purposes in posting here is to expose the
stupidity and dishonesty of creationists.
RF
TomS
<1181319858....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, backspace stated..."
>
>> Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
>> The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither does
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success "...Reproductive
>> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
>> a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>> Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
>> meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
>> is no intent.
>
>Taking this line of argument further:
>
>=== Two versions of Evolution ===
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>1)"..Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population
>from generation to generation."
>I presume they mean the animal still remains the same species?
Evolution is *not* about changes to individuals. Evolution is about
changes to *groups*.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Scooter the Mighty
> > Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
> > The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither doeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success"...Reproductive
> > success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
> > a way that they too can pass those genes on."
> > Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
> > meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
> > is no intent.
>
> Sorry I posted a new topic instead of replying to this thread ignore
> the other thread please:
>
> 1)"..Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population
> from generation to generation."
> I presume they mean the animal still remains the same species?
>
> 2) The other version of evolution tells us that we "evolved" from a
> single cell bacterium or something like that. But in this version a
> species transmutated as Darwin put it into another species.
>
> All we have ever observed is species stasis.
We've never observed genetic stasis. All offspring are different than
their parents. I don't know what you mean by "species," I would need
a definition and the journal reference for whoever formally
established it in order to admit that into the conversation.
> Now what version of
> evolution is Wikipedia talking about?
Definition one describes the process, definition two describes the
result of the process. That's why it says "evolved" not "evolution."
"Walking is a means of locomotion whereby you stand up and put one
foot in front of the other." "I walked to the store." Those are not
two different definitions of walking.
I don't understand why you're pretending not to understand, you are
obviously raising a stupid objection and it isn't even an argument
against evolution, just a refusal to have a conversation. No one is
forcing you to believe in evolution, to post here, or to have a
discussion. If you don't want to do it just visit a different site
and enjoy your life as is.
backspace
> > 2) The other version of evolution tells us that we "evolved" from a
> > single cell bacterium or something like that. But in this version a
> > species transmutated as Darwin put it into another species.
>
> This is exactly the same process.
> > All we have ever observed is species stasis.
> Nonsense. We have observed changes in populations both below and above
> the level of speciation. There is a very extensive literature on the
> subject.
You must refer me to this literature because "changes below and above"
has no meaning without intent. If you don't know what you mean by it
richardal...@googlemail.com
Changes which do not lead to speciation - i.e. below the level of
speciation.
Changes which *do* lead to speciation - i.e. above the level of
speciation.
It seems very, very simple to me.
What part of that don't you understand?
It seems very clear to me, but then I don't have a desperate need to
be confused. Does it not occur to you that you are making yourself,
and by association other creationists, look both stupid and dishonest.
It's no problem to me if that's what you want to do. As I have stated
repeatedly, one of my purposes in posting here is to expose the
stupidity and dishonesty of creationists.
Thank you for your help.
RF
Slimebot McGoo
Being a willful dumbfuck, how are you supposed to know anything at
all?
McGoo
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
>> The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither does
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success "...Reproductive
>> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
>> a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>> Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
>> meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
>> is no intent.
>
>Taking this line of argument further:
>
>=== Two versions of Evolution ===
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>1)"..Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population
>from generation to generation."
>I presume they mean the animal still remains the same species?
>
>2) The other version of evolution tells us that we "evolved" from a
>single cell bacterium or something like that. But in this version a
>species transmutates as Darwin put it into another species.
>
>All we have ever observed is species stasis.
well...not quite. ever hear of the fossil record?
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
>> Who's verion of "evolve" is Perry refering to? Evolve defined by whom.
>> The word "evolve" has no meaning without intent. And neither does
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success "...Reproductive
>> success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in
>> a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>> Defined by whom? If you don't tell me who says so the sentence is
>> meaningless just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if there
>> is no intent.
>
>Taking this line of argument further:
>
>=== Two versions of Evolution ===
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>1)"..Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population
>from generation to generation."
>I presume they mean the animal still remains the same species?
>
>2) The other version of evolution tells us that we "evolved" from a
>single cell bacterium or something like that. But in this version a
>species transmutates as Darwin put it into another species.
The usual analogy given to help the people who are struggling with this
point is the divergence of Latin into the Romance languages of the
present day. While there was once a single language, and there are now
several, there is not a bright line where one can say that one
generation spoke Latin, and the next Sardinian, or where we can say that
Spaniards and Portuguese spoke the same language on generation but
different languages the next.
Similarly different populations of one species can accumulate different
changes until eventually the different populations belong to different
species.
>
>All we have ever observed is species stasis. Now what version of
>evolution is Wikipedia talking about? They don't say merely use a
>word - evolution - and the sentence has no pragmatics, no intent: It
>is meaningless if the author who wrote that don't tell me what he
>meant by "evolution".
>
You are misinformed - we have observed species non-stasis (for example
in the long term studies on ground finches in the Galapagos Islands - a
presentation for the lay reader can be found in the book "The Beak of
the Finch"), and we have observed speciation (for example, the formation
of the tetraploid cytotype of Primula kewensis, or of Spartina anglica).
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
> Similarly different populations of one species can accumulate different
> changes until eventually the different populations belong to different
> species.
journal?
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
an explanation as to why your alleged incompatibility between change of
allele frequencies in populations and transmutation of species was not
an incompatibility. Surely you are capable of seeing that it reconciles
the two processes.
You could read Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origins of Species
(1942), as a prominent, relatively recent, source for the concept, but
it is written that he ascribes the origin of the idea to the 19th
century.
--
alias Ernest Major
Noelie S. Alito
Who formally established that a composite explanation needs
to be formally established in a journal?
John Wilkins
The idea that gradual (from a human perspective) accumulated changes
will cause a population to become a new species goes back, depending on
how you define "population" at least to the 1830s (Darwin to one side).
It was, in fact, a widely held view (e.g., by Buffon) that the effects
of local climate, soils, and necessities of life would change the form
of an animal from the ancestral form (but in Buffon's case, he thought
that a real species was something like our modern "family" level).
But as to "formally established" - I gave backspace the Fundamental
Theorem, Wright's equations on drift, and the equations indicating the
number of possible taxa based on binary splits some time back, and he
ignored it, three times, so I do not think he is being honest about his
requests. It's a slogan he thinks he can get away with.
backspace
> But as to "formally established" - I gave backspace the Fundamental
> Theorem, Wright's equations on drift, and the equations
prove that Similarly different populations of one species can
accumulate different changes until eventually the different
get a Nobel prize?
And you keep on stateing that you posted the equations. If they are
really this significant why don't you give us a Wikipedia entry or
some other webpage. Your refusal to do this indicates you are playing
games. This is actually very childlish Dr.Wilkins. Imagine if
somebody claims to have disproven Einstein's equations and when I ask
him for it he tells me:" ...but I have posted it now 50 times!" Why
don't you just post a weblink or pdf rather?
John Wilkins
The post had the links. Keep evading, backspace, you only make yourself
look childish.
backspace
> All we have ever observed is species stasis. Now what version of
> evolution is Wikipedia talking about? They don't say merely use a word
> - evolution - thus the sentence has no pragmatics, no intent: It is
> meaningless if the author who wrote that don't tell me what he meant
> by "evolution".
This thread is relevant to this discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e995e221e9c4d1d4/875a0e4fee714891#875a0e4fee714891
Here is a quote I have not read the full thread so don't know what
context this is in:
"..According to the HHS, the term "scientifically accurate" is
undefined.
As a government agency overseen by the GAO, when it determines that a
term is undefined, it is undefined until Congress or the courts choose
to define it. Until then, it's usage is literally "up for grabs" and
anyone can use it in any context, they choose (since it has no
meaning). For instance, "My left toe is scientifically accurate" is an
absolutely meaningless and true statement, whether it's a normal left
toe or mutant left toe or dismembered left toe. The actual reality of
my left toe carries no significance to the term, "scientifically
accurate". In the same exact way, "The Bible" is not actually modified
by the term, "scientifically accurate", because the term has no
defined meaning.
JTG 6/5/07 "
ric...@cbrp.co.uk
> On Jun 8, 6:27 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > All we have ever observed is species stasis. Now what version of
> > evolution is Wikipedia talking about? They don't say merely use a word
> > - evolution - thus the sentence has no pragmatics, no intent: It is
> > meaningless if the author who wrote that don't tell me what he meant
> > by "evolution".
>
>
> Here is a quote I have not read the full thread so don't know what
> context this is in:
> "..According to the HHS, the term "scientifically accurate" is
> undefined.
> As a government agency overseen by the GAO, when it determines that a
> term is undefined, it is undefined until Congress or the courts choose
> to define it. Until then, it's usage is literally "up for grabs" and
> anyone can use it in any context, they choose (since it has no
> meaning). For instance, "My left toe is scientifically accurate" is an
> absolutely meaningless and true statement, whether it's a normal left
> toe or mutant left toe or dismembered left toe. The actual reality of
> my left toe carries no significance to the term, "scientifically
> accurate". In the same exact way, "The Bible" is not actually modified
> by the term, "scientifically accurate", because the term has no
> defined meaning.
>
> JTG 6/5/07 "
This post is nonsense, as was pointed out by a number of responders.
The term "scientifically acurate" is perfectly comprehensible. If you
are unsure of its meaning - an only a dogmatic determination not to
understand can lead to any uncertainty - try looking up the terms in a
dictionary.
You seem very, very determined to make yourself look ignorant,
dishonest and stupid. If you are setting out to demonstrate that
creationism is a load of ignorant bullshit, you are succeeding very
well.
RF