Natural selection as a non-random selection process - Wikipedia
backspace
"...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
What would a random selection process look like?
Ron O
Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
theory.
Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
and determine if it even exists.
Just imagine if you had such an alternative, you wouldn't be wasting
your time looking like a boob doing what you are doing? Is it so
hopeless that you have stopped trying to come up with an alternative?
Sean Pitman, and other losers like Pagano have given up or at least
pretend to have stopped trying. If you don't have a viable
alternative what are you arguing about?
Ron Okimoto
Ernest Major
<ebb8eea6-f8d7-47fe...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
For a contemporary example, a random data stream can be obtained from
the number of decays in a sample of radioactive material. This could be
used to select the winners of a lottery.
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
> On Dec 11, 6:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
> theory.
>
> Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
> to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
> selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
> evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
> get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
> and determine if it even exists.
I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language which
means a decision. What has
a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?
Woland
The other posters made good points but here is another way to think
about it.
We know that 'natural selection' is non-random because we can observe
the characteristics that lead to greater reproductive success, which
means that individuals within a population that have this trait will
produce more offspring.
However, if it were a random process we would see no corelation
between traits and reproductive success. It would be a random
distribution.
Savy?
backspace
No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
random - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics. \
Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
backspace
No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
random - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.
Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
Geoff
If genomes were selected for that were *less* fit.
Geoff
Where do you get "a decision by a human"? Artificial selection involves
humans. Natural selection, and for that matter genetic drift, happens
naturally.
The term "natural selection" implies selection by nature, which cannot be a
positive rational decision in the strictest sense of the term "selection".
It is a metaphorical term.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> What would a random selection process look like?
Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
looking at them.
Sue (with 7 consonants at the moment, argh!)
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Woland
No, it doesn't mean decision. You should listen to people whose first
language is English by the way, we have a greater understanding of the
subtleties...well some of us anyway.
Though I can, as a person, select things, we often use selection to
apply to processes that do not involve humans.
Geoff
> No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
> process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
> random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
> with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is
> non- random -
I guess you can say it is redundant, though this isn't obvious. Thus, its
inclusion, though redundant, is necessary. Furthermore, indicating it is
non-random sets it apart from the underlying mutations and genetic drift
which are decidedly random.
> what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.
No idea what "aphobetics" are though your use of the term "pragmatics" is
sophomoric.
> Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
Would you agree that the sentence above is poorly worded?
Mujin
404c72...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
No, "selection" does not automatically imply decision by an intelligent
agent. An egg sorting machine selects the correct destination for each egg
based on its size, for example. Selection, particularly in a statistical
sense, simply means that the process is non-random. Here's an analogy that
illustrates the difference between natural selection (a non-random process)
and genetic drift (a random process)
Consider a scenario in which a sheet of hard plastic containing a
triangular hole is placed over a box. Blocks of various shapes are then
dropped onto the sheet. Those blocks that are triangular, and of a
suitable size, can slip through the hole. No other blocks can get through.
In the end, the box will contain only triangular blocks: triangles have
been selected by the process.
Consider a scenario identical to the above, except that instead of hard
plastic with a triangular hole there is a long, soft plastic sheet that
comes off a roll on one side of the box and gets gathered up on another
roll on the other side of the box. Blocks of various shapes are then
dropped onto the sheet. Some blocks will encounter a weak spot in the
plastic, and will rip through to fall into the box. Other blocks will
encounter stronger parts of the plastic, and will bounce away to be
discarded. When the process is done, the box will contain a random mixture
of blocks of various sizes and shapes.
--
Bon nou mujin sei gan dan
Woland
Selection does not have to be non-random or directed silly. Selection
can be completely random (functionally random anyway).
Get a jar of peanuts. Close your eyes and reach into the jar,
selecting a peanut. You have now randomly selected a peanut! Don't
they have bingo where you live? Or the lottery?
> Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?- Hide quoted text -
No. No I would not.
Woland
Aphobetic isn't even a word...
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2005-52,SUNA:en&q=aphobetic
Mujin
062e76...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
In the mathematical science of statistics, "selection" is a technical term
for a process that is not necessarily "non-random" so it's necessary to
specify.
>
> Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
I don't know about Woland, but I certainly don't agree. The direction in
which gravity acts is non-random, but it is also not directed.
Bob T.
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [etc.]
>
> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
> looking at them.
If the selection was at the word level instead of the letter level,
random selection would look a lot like a typical backspace post.
- Bob T.
Kermit
> On Dec 11, 4:30 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> > The other posters made good points but here is another way to think
> > about it.
>
> > We know that 'natural selection' is non-random because we can observe
> > the characteristics that lead to greater reproductive success, which
> > means that individuals within a population that have this trait will
> > produce more offspring.
>
> > However, if it were a random process we would see no corelation
> > between traits and reproductive success. It would be a random
> > distribution.
> > Savy?
>
> No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success".
Of course it does. While there is always some random changes - genetic
drift - any phenotype which is not as adapted to the environment as
most of its peers will be selected against, and traits which improve
the frog's reproductive success will be selected for.
> A selection
> process implies that it is directed by somebody
Unless there is a modifying term which makes it clear - especially
after 150 years of slow and careful explanations - that this is not a
conscious process.
> or that it is non- random.
Of *course it's non-random. "Random" in this context means in respect
to environmental pressures.
> In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> being non-random or directed.
Unless there is a modifying term which makes it clear that it is not.
> Which is why I want to know what's up
Nothing is "up" about it. Are you holding your computer over your
head? How can an article be "up"? Our language is largely metaphor. If
you cannot handle your own native tongue, it is not a problem for
evolutionary science.
> with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
> random
Some people apparently cannot (or pretend that they cannot) understand
plain English, so the article seems careful to explain what they are
talking about. Some folks are normal but young, and have never run
into these ideas before.
> - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.
Not applicable. Nobody who understands these words would try to apply
them here. Stick with trying to understand compound nouns and
adjectives; you have enough trouble with them.
>
> Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
No. "Directed" is only one of several ways a process might be non-
directed. Often a careful look at a process reveals that it is not
random, but a researcher might spend decades determining why it is
not.
The association between cardiac health and exercise is not random, for
example. We knew that 50 years ago. Researchers are still trying to
tease out all of the causal links and their mechanisms.
Kermit
Mark VandeWettering
Presumably it would select creatures at random, without any measurable
correlation to their phenotypes.
Mark
RAM
This deserves at least an honorable mention for POTM!
RAM
Rolf
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1faffe29-d566-4514...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
and i believe it must be a real problem both for you and all people you talk
to, that you are suca a querulous type.
You are right; 'selection' means a decisison - in the context you are
referring to. But only an idiot will insist that words always have the same
meaning, connotation, regardless of context. Now, be a good boy and try to
learn something about what the context of evolutionary theory may mean in
this context...
Like in this context, the word idiot simply means "Someone without a clue."
If you are incapable of that and will continue inisisting that "selection"
means a "decision by a human", then you might feel more comfortable in
another forum. Why not try a creationist forum?
Rolf
"Cheezits" <Cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A0366278A1F2ch...@130.81.64.196...
> backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
> looking at them.
>
Oh, so we really are into playing word games now, are we?
Random selection doesn't sound good to me, i'd rather say "Selection at
random" i.e. there are two processes; selection, with the element of
randomness added.
I select, but chose to let the result be determined by a random factor by
leaving the outcome to a secondary source outside of my control. The
opposite would of course be selection without that random element, by
looking at the pieces and decide which one to chose. Still, some randomness
may be present, for instance by the bag containing only a random selection
of tiles.
Inez
What happened to your claim that we have to know "intent" to know what
words mean? Does that only happen when it supports your odd notions?
John Harshman
Put a bunch of marbles in a bag. Pick one out without looking at it.
That's a random selection. Or watch them pick the lotto numbers on TV
some time. Same thing.
Now put a bunch of marbles in a bag, some black, some white. Take one
out at random. If it's white, crush it with a hammer. If it's black, put
it back and add another black marble to the bag too. How long before all
the marbles are black?
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
No.
Many things, Natural Selection among them, are booth non-random and
non-directed.
Greg Guarino
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> > No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> > itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
> > process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
> > random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> > being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
> > with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is
> > non- random -
> I guess you can say it is redundant, though this isn't obvious. Thus, its
> inclusion, though redundant, is necessary. Furthermore, indicating it is
> non-random sets it apart from the underlying mutations and genetic drift
> which are decidedly random.
The problem is your making English undefined. I don't know what it is
that materialists are trying
to say with "selection" other than merely pointing out that given your
premises the word is not available to you as Dernavich explained on
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
> > Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
> Would you agree that the sentence above is poorly worded?
Yes, I would agree let me try again:
Woland, would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
backspace
A selection is a decision, you have still made a conscious decision
to select for a peanut, any peanut - your example is a red herring.
> > Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> No. No I would not.
But it is and you are wrong, you live in a seperate language universe
than I do.
backspace
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:41:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
>
> No.
>
> Many things, Natural Selection among them, are booth non-random and
> non-directed.
>
> Greg Guarino
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2064038
"...However, a critical flaw of diffusive models is that they fail to
take into account the non-random, directed forces that act on the DNA,
which are typically on the scale of piconewtons (pN), arising from
both pressure in the phage head and in the cell cytoplasm..."
Gred are you saying the author of this paper is confused ?
--
fnording
Guido
called "Process 1307" the theory would have been the same.
Woland
1) You don't know what 'red herring' means
2) I made a decision to select for a peanut, but the particular peanut
was chosen at random.
> > > Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > No. No I would not.
>
> But it is and you are wrong, you live in a separate language universe
No, I am right. You live in a language universe with a population of
1.
> than I do.
backspace
And as the Wikipedia page on phenotype has pointed out there are no
citations: Nobody can tell Wikipedia who says so or who has defined or
established what is a phenotypte. It seems to be just
another rubbish word like the term "reproductive success", just word
filler to give the illusion of explaining something. So tell me then
who has established what is a phenotype, how was it defined, what are
we really trying to say with this word. What is the purpose behind
it.
michael
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 11, 6:18 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:41:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
>>
>> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Would would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Many things, Natural Selection among them, are booth non-random and
>> non-directed.
>>
>> Greg Guarino
>
>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2064038
>"...However, a critical flaw of diffusive models is that they fail to
>take into account the non-random, directed forces that act on the DNA,
>which are typically on the scale of piconewtons (pN), arising from
>both pressure in the phage head and in the cell cytoplasm..."
>
>Gred are you saying the author of this paper is confused ?
Now I AM confused.
Are you saying that what appears to be random, is
in reality directed?
Like the lottery, someone has to direct the drawing
of the numbers ....
Woland
Here are the references wikipedia uses for the phenotype article:
# Churchill F.B. 1974. William Johannsen and the genotype concept. J
History of Biology 7, 5-30.
# ^ Johannsen W. 1911. The genotype conception of heredity. American
Naturalist 45, 129-159
# ^ Sydney Brenner and Jeffrey H. Miller. 2002. Encyclopedia of
Genetics San Diego: Academic Press.
Here is a definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenotype
Why do you refuse to learn?
Ken Denny
Woland
He doesn't know what he's saying.
Ernest Major
<a7e7389d-80ba-4e62...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
pragmatically incompetent - otherwise you would know that you can't
support your position by googling for a few words, and ignoring the
context in which they appear.
--
alias Ernest Major
James Goetz
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> What would a random selection process look like?
That does not exist. But I think you mean a random process of fixation
and extinction, which is "genetic drift".
John Harshman
Sure, that's easy for you to say.
Greg Guarino
OK, now you've got me curious. Exactly how did you come up with this
particular quote, and what made you think it had anything to do with
the discussion at hand? I'm guessing (although I haven't tried it)
that you looked up some combination of "non-random", "directed" and
"DNA" and then copied the resultant paragraph into your post without
reading the rest of the article.
A quick perusal (by a non-biologist, me) shows the article to be about
phages, and the method(s) by which they may infect bacteria. Is that
what you got from the article? If so, how is that relevant? If not,
what did YOU think the article was about?
Greg Guarino
michael
wrote:
>backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[etc.]
>> What would a random selection process look like?
>
>Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
>looking at them.
>
>Sue (with 7 consonants at the moment, argh!)
No, you are confused - that is not about natural selection. You're
pragmatically incompetent ...
--
Ernest Majors ...
Sam
The statment makes perfect sense.
Your inability to understand what is said is not the fault of the author or
the language.
Sam
Your games are getting old. Learn English.
- A star peterbs the orbit of passing matter, larger objects get pulled in,
medium objects end up in orbit, smaller objects skim by. Did the star
intellegently select the medium objects?
- Water washes away smaller rocks but leaves behind larger ones. Did the
water intellegently select which ones?
- Two cell colonies exist with the ability to metabollize different types
of carbohydrates exist in an enviroment where one carbo is abundent and the
other rare. One cell thrives and the other dies off. Did the carbohydrate
intelligently select which cell colony should survive?
- An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere and
is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select which
to destroy and which to sustain?
Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.
Greg Guarino
wrote:
>backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[etc.]
>> What would a random selection process look like?
>
>Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
>looking at them.
>
>Sue (with 7 consonants at the moment, argh!)
I've really got to start reading more slowly. I thought that said
"with 7 *cosmonauts* at the moment, argh!". Argh, indeed.
7 vowels is much worse, by the way, IMO.
Greg Guarino
backspace
wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
Elsewhere you said that NS is non-random but that by this you didn't
mean it is directed.
Yet ProfMoriarty begs to differ:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=600&start=0
"...The creationist scenario really has no counter for this fact
within evolutionary theory, as the arguments against evolution tend to
be based on the assumption that Darwinian evolution is a random and
undirected process which, if that were true, cannot be expected to
produce complex lifeforms. The fact that it is non-random and it is
directed by natural selection undermines this assumption
completely..."
He says that evolution is non-random and is directed.
backspace
No, genetic drift is unfalsifiable. I read the definition on Wikipedia
and it is clear that no matter what happens somebody can always claim
"drift". I am not talking about stuff floating, drifting or going
extinct I am talking about the word "selection" which always means a
goal directed decision as a concept in language itself. Materialists
are making language undefined.
--
fnord
backspace
> >> On Dec 11, 6:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> >>> "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural
> >>> selection, a non-random selection process in which the tendency of
> >>> alleles to become more or less widespread in a population over time
> >>> is due to the alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive
> >>> success..."
>
> >>> What would a random selection process look like?
>
> >> theory.
>
> >> Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
> >> to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
> >> selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to
> >> the evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games
> >> won't get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you
> >> can go out and determine if it even exists.
>
> > I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language which
> > means a decision. What has
> > a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?
>
> humans.
There is no such thing as an "artificial" selection - it is a semantic
impossibility coined by
Darwin in 1859. He only used the term once and Wikipedia is refusing
to quote the passage in OoS on the AS page because it is so
embarrassing for metarialists. Saying something is so doesn't make it
so. If Darwin had said the planet Zog contains frogs, it doens't mean
it is so, one needs to motivate for your terms and Darwin motivation
is absurd.
Passage that Wikipedia refuses to quote:
"....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
fittest....."
--
Fnord
Falsify my Glossolalia - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
treu...@yahoo.com
backspace wrote:
> I am not talking about stuff floating, drifting or going
> extinct I am talking about the word "selection" which always means a
> goal directed decision as a concept in language itself.
The word "selection" is a borderline misnomer because it (almost)
suggests a programmatic quality control process is happening.
James Goetz
Sorry, but biology has branches of science called "population
genetics" and "molecular evolution", and these biological sciences
have statistical tests that verify and falsify both natural selection
and genetic drift.
backspace
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1faffe29-d566-4514-a696-
> 404c72b6e...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> >> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> >> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> >> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> >> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> >> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> >> theory.
>
> >> Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
> >> to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
> >> selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
> >> evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
> >> get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
> >> and determine if it even exists.
>
> > I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language which
> > means a decision. What has
> > a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?
>
> agent. An egg sorting machine selects the correct destination for each egg
> based on its size, for example. Selection, particularly in a statistical
> sense, simply means that the process is non-random. Here's an analogy that
> illustrates the difference between natural selection (a non-random process)
> and genetic drift (a random process)
You are confusing patterns with designs, we have been through this.
See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com "Selection" implies will and
motive, it is a word we use when we try to say that there was any sort
of motive or will to make or allow something to happen.
The waves "sorting" the sand is a pattern not a design and thus our
intent with "sorting" is clear in the context that we use it.
"Selection" though has a more strong will, motive intent than
"sorting" which is why the word is not available to you given your
premises. As linguist list said "You can't deny your cake and then
proceed to eat it too!"
--
fnord
backspace
> - An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
> different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere and
> is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select which
> to destroy and which to sustain?
I can't read http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com for you, you will have
to do it yourself. Perry Marshall goes through great effort explaining
the difference between patterns and designs.
The earthquake "altering" the path of a river wasn't a design but an
occurence, an event took place - a pattern. And thus the intent with
"altering" clear. What you can't do though is use the word 'selection'
in biology since your premise is that there is no motive or outside
will directing the whole process, hence nobody did any selectings.
> Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.
Yes, it does because it implies will and motive which leads to
designs. Our intent determines the definition of words. We must agree
on the meaning or semantics of words or we can't communicate our
intent. What for example is your intent with "selection" in biology
since in ordinary speech it
implies will and motive.
--
fnord
backspace
> In message
> <a7e7389d-80ba-4e62-b936-4b5e9f8ed...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes
The context is the English language, wether in biology or physics, we
all use the same English language. What the materialists are doing is
invent their own language reality because their
minds are in some sort of intimate cartoonish universe, a fantasy
world where they can make language mean whatever they want to make it
mean.
Ernest Major
<yos...@hotmail.com> writes
Please do not engage in froggery (signing your post with an
approximation of my handle).
And if you think the above was a reasonable response in the context you
are confused.
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
The article as far as I am concerned could have been about Yak herders
in out Mongolia contemplating the meaning of life. The issue we are
discussing is language period. Everything is subject unto Language -
physics,colloquial conversation and life/biology itself which as
Prof.Cleland has pointed out is not defined. Biology is just a synonym
for life in a sense because there can't be any "biology" without
life.
Non-random and directed must have consistent meanings in all spheres
of human endevour, materialists though have hijacked biology(whatever
biology is supposed to mean) and implemented their delusion that they
can make language mean whatever they want to make it mean.
--
Fnord
richardal...@googlemail.com
Why?
We don't require that of any other words in the English language.
What do you think your need to make such ludicrous arguments tells us
about the validity of your case?
RF
Kermit
> On Dec 11, 6:42 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 4:30 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 7:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
>
> > > about it.
>
> > > We know that 'natural selection' is non-random because we can observe
> > > the characteristics that lead to greater reproductive success, which
> > > means that individuals within a population that have this trait will
> > > produce more offspring.
>
> > > However, if it were a random process we would see no corelation
> > > between traits and reproductive success. It would be a random
> > > distribution.
> > > Savy?
>
> > No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> > itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success".
>
> drift - any phenotype which is not as adapted to the environment as
> most of its peers will be selected against, and traits which improve
> the frog's reproductive success will be selected for.
>
> > A selection
> > process implies that it is directed by somebody
>
> after 150 years of slow and careful explanations - that this is not a
> conscious process.
>
> > or that it is non- random.
>
> to environmental pressures.
>
> > In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> > being non-random or directed.
>
>
> > Which is why I want to know what's up
>
> head? How can an article be "up"? Our language is largely metaphor. If
> you cannot handle your own native tongue, it is not a problem for
> evolutionary science.
>
> > with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
> > random
>
> plain English, so the article seems careful to explain what they are
> talking about. Some folks are normal but young, and have never run
> into these ideas before.
>
> > - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.
>
> them here. Stick with trying to understand compound nouns and
> adjectives; you have enough trouble with them.
>
>
>
> > Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
>
> No. "Directed" is only one of several ways a process might be non-
> directed. Often a careful look at a process reveals that it is not
> random, but a researcher might spend decades determining why it is
> not.
>
> The association between cardiac health and exercise is not random, for
> example. We knew that 50 years ago. Researchers are still trying to
> tease out all of the causal links and their mechanisms.
>
> Kermit
Grrr.
"Directed" is only one of several ways a process might be non-
*random*.
Kermit
Woland
You're so crazy that you're not even wrong. Spend some time learning
about syntax.
Kermit
<snip>
>
> But it is and you are wrong, you live in a seperate language universe
> than I do.
This is very close to the truth.
Kermit
Sam
> On Dec 11, 9:35 pm, "Sam" <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> - An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
>> different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere
>> and
>> is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select
>> which
>> to destroy and which to sustain?
>
> I can't read http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com for you, you will have
> to do it yourself. Perry Marshall goes through great effort explaining
> the difference between patterns and designs.
> The earthquake "altering" the path of a river wasn't a design but an
> occurence, an event took place - a pattern. And thus the intent with
> "altering" clear. What you can't do though is use the word 'selection'
> in biology since your premise is that there is no motive or outside
> will directing the whole process, hence nobody did any selectings.
Misdirecting the question I see, way to go.
>> Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.
> Yes, it does because it implies will and motive which leads to
> designs.
Nope, not in this context.
Our intent determines the definition of words. We must agree
> on the meaning or semantics of words or we can't communicate our
> intent.
Yep, it's called language. It's never perfect, but it works pretty good
when you have a common basis of understanding as one might find in a
dictionary.
What for example is your intent with "selection" in biology
> since in ordinary speech it
> implies will and motive.
"any natural or artificial process that results in differential reproduction
among the members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only
certain individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion,
to succeeding generations." (dictionary.com defintion 4)
If you are able to comprehend the above you may notice no intelligent agent
is being described, hense the emphasis on "natural or artificial" at the
beginning as well as the broad scope of "any".
Maybe you were absent from kindergarten the day they went over the concept
that words can have more than one meaning.
> --
> fnord
Woland
Ahhh, but he is saying that it is directed by what?
Natural selection.
See it's ironic that you're using this as some sort of argument since
you think that 1) Natural selection can't exist, and 2) direction can
only be caused by conscious entities, not natural forces/events
You're just plain hilarious.
Woland
'Selection' does not mean what you think it means.
Woland
> On Dec 11, 9:35 pm, "Sam" <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > - An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
> > different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere and
> > is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select which
> > to destroy and which to sustain?
>
> to do it yourself. Perry Marshall goes through great effort explaining
> the difference between patterns and designs.
> The earthquake "altering" the path of a river wasn't a design but an
> occurence, an event took place - a pattern. And thus the intent with
> "altering" clear. What you can't do though is use the word 'selection'
> in biology since your premise is that there is no motive or outside
> will directing the whole process, hence nobody did any selectings.
>
> > Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.
>
> Yes, it does because it implies will and motive which leads to
> designs. Our intent determines the definition of words. We must agree
> on the meaning or semantics of words or we can't communicate our
> intent. What for example is your intent with "selection" in biology
> since in ordinary speech it
> implies will and motive.
No, common usage determines the definitions of words. The use of the
word 'selection' falls well within common usage.
Kermit
> On Dec 11, 8:39 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> > That does not exist. But I think you mean a random process of fixation
> > and extinction, which is "genetic drift".
>
> No, genetic drift is unfalsifiable.
Genetic drift is an observed process. It is a fact.
> I read the definition on Wikipedia
> and it is clear that no matter what happens somebody can always claim
> "drift".
Sane people would not respond inappropriately, as you do. Folks here
have brought up drift several times as a non-controversial example of
a random process in the context of evolution. Most of us would not
bring it up (up from where?) in response to most assertions or
questions.
> I am not talking about stuff floating, drifting or going
> extinct I am talking about the word "selection" which always means a
> goal directed decision
Well, no. One example is genetic drift.
Another is picking a marble from a bag, eyes closed.
Another would be gravel washed by water.
What about these simple examples confuses you?
> as a concept in language itself.
Your saying so doesn't make it so. One counter example is natural
selection, a perfectly comprehensible idea that is 150 years old.
> Materialists are making language undefined.
Really? I'd ask for examples, but you seem so confused about ordinary
language usage (compound nouns, using dictionaries, the difference
between linguistics and grammar, etc.) that I hesitate to trouble you
further.
Kermit
>
> --
> fnord
Greg Guarino
This is a weak dodge even by your standards. The article isn't about
Yak herders. You chose it because the words "non-random" and
"directed" were dangling there like shiny objects and gave you a
little tingle inside.
>The issue we are
>discussing is language period. Everything is subject unto Language -
>physics,colloquial conversation and life/biology itself
Nonsense. Even if we assume you are correct and God "spoke" the world
into existence, human languages are used to communicate our ideas and
impressions of the world. What is, is, no matter what we choose to
call it.
>which as
>Prof.Cleland has pointed out is not defined. Biology is just a synonym
>for life in a sense because there can't be any "biology" without
>life.
>
>Non-random and directed must have consistent meanings in all spheres
>of human endevour,
My current area of human endeavor is roughly a rectangular prism, not,
as you suggest, a sphere. Or are there perhaps several menaings of
that word? What does Prof. Cleland profess, anyway? Are his points
sharp? Which "sense" are we in? I'm guessing "smell".
Greg Guarino
John Harshman
> On Dec 11, 6:15 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>backspace wrote:
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
>>>"...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
>>>non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
>>>become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
>>>alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> Elsewhere you said that NS is non-random but that by this you didn't
> mean it is directed.
Yes. Really, that should be obvious.
> Yet ProfMoriarty begs to differ:
>
> http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=600&start=0
> "...The creationist scenario really has no counter for this fact
> within evolutionary theory, as the arguments against evolution tend to
> be based on the assumption that Darwinian evolution is a random and
> undirected process which, if that were true, cannot be expected to
> produce complex lifeforms. The fact that it is non-random and it is
> directed by natural selection undermines this assumption
> completely..."
>
> He says that evolution is non-random and is directed.
Please don't confuse evolution and natural selection. ProfMoriarty seems
a bit confused here, I'll agree. Why is that my problem? We are all
agreed that natural selection is non-random. Whether it's directed
depends on what you mean by "directed". I'm going to bet that
ProfMoriarty doesn't mean that there is anyone standing behind it
pulling strings, only that it can produce a specific result, i.e. I
think he means it more or less as a synonym of "non-random".
Now when I said NS isn't directed, I meant that there is no person or
intelligence or intent involved in producing the result.
I know you won't understand, but still I try.
Mujin
news:78184ce9-d519-4ffd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
No, *you* are confusing patterns with designs. In fact, the confusion of
pattern and design appears to be the entire basis of your objection to
evolution; all else seems to be rationalization.
> we have been through this.
> See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com "Selection" implies will and
> motive, it is a word we use when we try to say that there was any sort
> of motive or will to make or allow something to happen.
Selection used in the vernacular sense does typically imply motive.
However, selection is a neutral word when used in its statistical sense.
>
> The waves "sorting" the sand is a pattern not a design and thus our
> intent with "sorting" is clear in the context that we use it.
> "Selection" though has a more strong will, motive intent than
> "sorting" which is why the word is not available to you given your
> premises. As linguist list said "You can't deny your cake and then
> proceed to eat it too!"
You *really* need to learn more about the ways in which words used as
technical terms can diverge in meaning from the same word used in the
vernacular.
--
Bon nou mujin sei gan dan
Kermit
How can something which is used by thousands of people for
generations, about which innumerable articles, papers, and books have
been written, be semantically impossible?
> He only used the term once and Wikipedia is refusing
> to quote the passage in OoS
Why should they quote the passage? Why don't *you:
Tell us who determined this pseudo-requirement,
Where it is written,
And when the rest of us agreed to it?
> on the AS page because it is so embarrassing for metarialists.
Bwahahahaha! What evidence do you have that anyone finds it
embarrassing? Other than in your dreams, I mean?
> Saying something is so doesn't make it
> so. If Darwin had said the planet Zog contains frogs, it doens't mean
> it is so,
Quite true. That's why he offered us years of collected evidence and a
testable model to explain it. You've never said what problem you might
have with the model or the evidence, BTW. Should I assume that you
accept them?
> one needs to motivate for your terms and Darwin motivation
> is absurd.
Umm...
What?
>
> Passage that Wikipedia refuses to quote:
> "....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
> much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
> change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
> organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
> life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
> nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
> fittest....."
Eloquently put, yes.
What about it? Areyou seriously suggesting that they should have
anticipated *your confusion on this issue, and printed the passage?
Well, now that you have found it, is there anything else you need
cleared up?
>
> --
> Fnord
> Falsify my Glossolalia -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
Why do you think that babbling is interesting, miraculous, uncommon,
or important?
Try saying something that everyone can understand. *Any fool can be
incomprehensible.
Kermit
leland....@gmail.com
> On Dec 11, 6:18 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:41:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
>
> > No.
>
> > Many things, Natural Selection among them, are booth non-random and
> > non-directed.
>
> > Greg Guarino
>
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2064038
> "...However, a critical flaw of diffusive models is that they fail to
> take into account the non-random, directed forces that act on the DNA,
> which are typically on the scale of piconewtons (pN), arising from
> both pressure in the phage head and in the cell cytoplasm..."
>
> Gred are you saying the author of this paper is confused ?
Well clearly the author of the paper doesn't think non-random and
directed are directly equivalent synonyms, or else they wouldn't be
stacking them up like that (since including both would be quite
redundant); that is, it clearly doesn't contradict Greg that non-
random and directed are distinct and non-equivalent terms. Also, since
the "forces acting on the DNA" in the article are not natural
selection forces, it doesn't contradict Greg that natural selection is
not directed... Thus I'm not exactly sure what yur point here is,
other than to show another example of someone who views non-random and
directed as distinct non-synonomous terms, further demonstrating how
wrong you are.
Kermit
No, we don't. You clearly use another language altogether when you
speak English.
> What the materialists are doing is
> invent their own language reality because their
> minds are in some sort of intimate cartoonish universe, a fantasy
> world where they can make language mean whatever they want to make it
> mean.
We all do. The problems arise when somebody wants to use words in ways
which nobody else does. Like you, for example.
When we point to encyclopedic, textbook, or dictionary references,
what are we doing but (among other things) pointing out that many
millions of people use certain terms in an agreed-upon way?
You can stamp your feet and hold your breath and call evolutionary
theory Fred, but when all is said and done the evidence is still there
and Fred explains it all.
Are you ever going to address the evidence and the theory, or are you
simply going to affirm over and again that you can't use your own
mother tongue?
Kermit
Geoff
>>> I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language
>>> which means a decision. What has
>>> a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?
>>
>> Where do you get "a decision by a human"? Artificial selection
>> involves humans.
>
> There is no such thing as an "artificial" selection - it is a semantic
> impossibility coined by Darwin in 1859.
How is "artificial selection" a "semantic impossibility"? Are you objecting
on the grounds that humans are a part of nature and thus selection by them
cannot be artificial?
> He only used the term once
There is a whole chapter devoted to "variation under domestication" in OOS.
> and Wikipedia is refusing
> to quote the passage in OoS on the AS page because it is so
> embarrassing for metarialists.
Oh, really. What makes you say that?
> Saying something is so doesn't make it
> so. If Darwin had said the planet Zog contains frogs, it doens't mean
> it is so, one needs to motivate for your terms and Darwin motivation
> is absurd.
>
> Passage that Wikipedia refuses to quote:
> "....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
> much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
> change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
> organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
> life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
> nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
> fittest....."
And why do you suppose that should embarrass anyone, let alone Darwin or
Wikipedia?
Geoff
> You are confusing patterns with designs, we have been through this.
> See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com "Selection" implies will and
> motive, it is a word we use when we try to say that there was any sort
> of motive or will to make or allow something to happen.
Not in the case of "natural selection". In this case, it is a metaphor.
Geoff
>> I guess you can say it is redundant, though this isn't obvious.
>> Thus, its inclusion, though redundant, is necessary. Furthermore,
>> indicating it is non-random sets it apart from the underlying
>> mutations and genetic drift which are decidedly random.
>
> The problem is your making English undefined.
No, the problem is you adding unnecessary rigidity to a language that I
understand quite fine. I am not making English undefined. Far from it. I am
interpreting the use of a certain word, "selection", as literal or
metaphorical.
> I don't know what it is
> that materialists are trying
Your ignorance is hardly anyone's problem other than your own.
> to say with "selection" other than merely pointing out that given your
> premises the word is not available to you as Dernavich explained on
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
He makes the same mistake you do: "We are comfortable with 'natural
selection' as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother Nature, or
some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys. As a technical term, it is a
misleading oxymoron."
It's only misleading to anyone who is predisposed to Intelligent Design or
creation. Evolutionists understand that it is merely a metaphor which
contrasts the selection by humans for desireable traits in domesticated
plants and animals with the how genomes succeed or fail in interspecific and
intraspecific competition in nature.
>
>>> Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
>
>> Would you agree that the sentence above is poorly worded?
>
> Yes, I would agree let me try again:
> Woland, would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
No.
Davej
>
> [...] ...I am talking about the word "selection" which always
> means a goal directed decision as a concept in language itself.
You certainly are full of silly claims.
Ron O
> On Dec 11, 2:40 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 6:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> > Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
> > theory.
>
> > Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
> > to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
> > selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
> > evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
> > get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
> > and determine if it even exists.
>
> means a decision. What has
>
You are joking, rigth?
No one could be as stupid as to think that the term natural selection
had anything to do with human decisions. Read about it and find out
what the term means. It happens in nature, with no human intervention
required. Are you under the impression that a word has to have the
same meaning in all applications? That would be even worse than
bumbling about human intervention. How about, you have obviously been
snowed by creationist scam artists your whole life, compared to
getting snowed in, in a mountain cabin?
Ron Okimoto
Cj
> On Dec 11, 2:40 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 6:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
>> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
>> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
>> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
>> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>>
>> > What would a random selection process look like?
>>
>> Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
>> theory.
>>
>> Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
>> to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
>> selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
>> evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
>> get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
>> and determine if it even exists.
>
> I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language which
> means a decision. What has
> a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?
>
Because only sentient beings make decisions you damned fool.
Cj
> On Dec 11, 5:17 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 9:41 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 11, 4:30 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 11, 7:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
>> > > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural
>> > > > selection, a
>> > > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
>> > > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to
>> > > > the
>> > > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>>
>> > > > What would a random selection process look like?
>>
>> > > about it.
>>
>> > > We know that 'natural selection' is non-random because we can observe
>> > > the characteristics that lead to greater reproductive success, which
>> > > means that individuals within a population that have this trait will
>> > > produce more offspring.
>>
>> > > However, if it were a random process we would see no corelation
>> > > between traits and reproductive success. It would be a random
>> > > distribution.
>> > > Savy?
>>
>> > No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
>> > process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
>> > random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
>> > being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
>> > with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
>>
>> Selection does not have to be non-random or directed silly. Selection
>> can be completely random (functionally random anyway).
>>
>> Get a jar of peanuts. Close your eyes and reach into the jar,
>> selecting a peanut. You have now randomly selected a peanut! Don't
>> they have bingo where you live? Or the lottery?
>
> A selection is a decision, you have still made a conscious decision
> to select for a peanut, any peanut - your example is a red herring.
>
>
>> > Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?- Hide
>> > quoted text -
>>
>> No. No I would not.
>
> But it is and you are wrong, you live in a seperate language universe
> than I do.
>
Everybody lives in a "separate language universe than you do"
You are illiterate
Cheezits
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:02:37 GMT, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[etc.]
>>
>>without looking at them.
>>
He asked what a random selection process would look like. I gave an
example. Does that help?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're
>> pragmatically incompetent - otherwise you would know that you can't
>> support your position by googling for a few words, and ignoring the
>> context in which they appear.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>The context is the English language, wether in biology or physics, we
>all use the same English language. What the materialists are doing is
>invent their own language reality because their
>minds are in some sort of intimate cartoonish universe, a fantasy
>world where they can make language mean whatever they want to make it
>mean.
Do you like pineapples? I hope not. Because a direct application of
your usual blather proves that pineapples cannot exist, at least not
in the English-speaking parts of the world. Likewise prairie dogs, who
certainly could not live in "towns". Orangutans can apparently exist
until one learns the etymology. Then they wink out of existence
without a trace.
Even if you were right, that Darwin and all those that followed
applied a badly-chosen phrase, it would not disturb the reality of the
phenomenon we call Natural Selection. Lightning was still electricity
even when people thought it was the act of the local angry god.
Greg Guarino
David Hare-Scott
> There is no such thing as an "artificial" selection - it is a semantic
> impossibility coined by
> Darwin in 1859. He only used the term once and Wikipedia is refusing
> to quote the passage in OoS on the AS page because it is so
> embarrassing for metarialists. Saying something is so doesn't make it
> so. If Darwin had said the planet Zog contains frogs, it doens't mean
> it is so, one needs to motivate for your terms and Darwin motivation
> is absurd.
Here you go with your pointless word games again. Get it through your head:
what words you understand or don't understand makes zero difference to the
nature of the world and the things in it that are represented by those words
or the understanding of anybody but yourself. You are alone, solo, just one
and solitary in your confusion and blind adherance to the illusion that your
games have any meaning.
David
Avont
> A selection process implies that it is directed by somebody or that
> it is non-random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is
> defined as being non-random or directed.
Indeed. Since the output, i.e. an organism that is adapted to its
environment, is highly organized, it seems the process itself has to
be other than random.
backspace
> Even if you were right, that Darwin and all those that followed
> applied a badly-chosen phrase, it would not disturb the reality of the
> phenomenon we call Natural Selection.
There is no such thing as a triangular circle and whatever you are
trying to say or phenomena describe, you can't use a semantic
impossibility to do this. What is this phenomena for which NS is a
proxy? Who says so, where has it been established, quote the me the
passage in Uncle Darwin's book.
backspace
English is not my mother tongue, it is Afrikaans. Ek is n boer van
Suid Afrika.
What theory Kermit, there is no Theory of Evolution , it doesn't
exist. Show me where on Wikipedia
is Darwin's theory of evolution. I have quoted Darwin where he used
the terms Theory of gradual evolution, but what do we define as
evolution? In 1859 it meant the unrolling of prefabricated beings by
God, is this what Darwin meant?
backspace
wrote:
> Now when I said NS isn't directed, I meant that there is no person or
> intelligence or intent involved in producing the result.
Then what did produce the result?
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 3:06 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Even if you were right, that Darwin and all those that followed
>> applied a badly-chosen phrase, it would not disturb the reality of the
>> phenomenon we call Natural Selection.
>
>There is no such thing as a triangular circle and whatever you are
>trying to say or phenomena describe, you can't use a semantic
>impossibility to do this.
First of all, yes we can. We can name things in any way we like, if
enough of our contemporaries agree, anyway. As yet no one has found a
use that I know of for "triangular circle", but a restaurant by that
name would not fade into nonexistence as a result of the name. You
snipped this part:
"Do you like pineapples? I hope not. Because a direct application of
your usual blather proves that pineapples cannot exist, at least not
in the English-speaking parts of the world. Likewise prairie dogs, who
certainly could not live in "towns". Orangutans can apparently exist
until one learns the etymology. Then they wink out of existence
without a trace. "
So what about pineapples? They are neither pine nor apples and are
thus impossible, right? The same logic makes tomatoes impossible in
Italy and potatoes impossible in France, by the way, yet neither
country starves. Prairie dogs are rodents and their "towns" have no
houses, stores or streets. "Orangutan" means "man of the forest". Are
they men, or do we now have another impossibility on our hands?
I'll grant you one thing; your comical arguments frequently carry with
them the opportunity to make some important points. In this case, it
is about the use of metaphor in language. It occurs to me that
metaphor is not merely a frequent feature of language, it is the very
core of our language ability. Our use of symbols and our ability to
find similarities between dissimilar ideas are prerequisites for
language. It's no wonder that when confronted with an unnamed thing,
or idea, we don't simply call it a "fnordus", we draw on existing
words instead.
A pineapple is a fruit (apple-ish thing) that looks a bit like a pine
cone. Prairie dogs sound something like dogs and have vast communal
tunnel systems that remind us of towns. And orangutans are fairly
man-like creatures that live in the forest.
You yourself can't avoid metaphoric language, even while attempting to
make the point that words can only have one meaning. You speak of a
"sphere" of human endeavor, for instance. I ask you, how is a
geometric shape in any way related to the concept that term describes?
And why a sphere? It could just as easily be a dodecahedron. And why
even a solid figure? I have a "circle" of friends, don't I? They are
not especially two dimensional. Some, like me, are a little too
three-dimensional for our own health.
>What is this phenomena for which NS is a
>proxy? Who says so, where has it been established, quote the me the
>passage in Uncle Darwin's book.
I've quoted it to you several times, and you have even quoted the same
passage in your own posts. An honest debater wouldn't ask for it
again.
Greg Guarino
Woland
The environmental conditions that favored certain traits over others.
Question: We've all gone over this with you many many many times. At
the very least you should be able to understand, if not agree with,
our position. Do you lose all of your memories and knowledge when you
fall asleep at night?
John Harshman
A variety of environmental causes, depending on the exact organisms and
features we're talking about, that we subsume under the name of "natural
selection". For a simple example, the prevalence of dark peppered moths
in 19th Century Britain was due to the fact that light ones were not
well camouflaged against tree trunks and tended to be found and eaten by
birds. Thus light moths decreased in frequency and dark moths increased.
That's natural selection.
Woland
wrote:
Wait, but what got naturaled again? Oh crap, I'm not even wrong...
John Harshman
What are your pragmatics for "wrong"?
backspace
> On Dec 11, 1:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 5:38 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2007-12-11, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
>
> > > correlation to their phenotypes.
>
> > > Mark
>
> > And as the Wikipedia page on phenotype has pointed out there are no
> > citations: Nobody can tell Wikipedia who says so or who has defined or
> > established what is a phenotypte. It seems to be just
> > another rubbish word like the term "reproductive success", just word
> > filler to give the illusion of explaining something. So tell me then
> > who has established what is a phenotype, how was it defined, what are
> > we really trying to say with this word. What is the purpose behind
> > it.
>
> Here are the references wikipedia uses for the phenotype article:
> # ^ Johannsen W. 1911. The genotype conception of heredity. American
> Naturalist 45, 129-159
And where did Johannsen get the idea of a genotype from ? In 1911 they
didn't know about the
genes is a language argument from http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com.
The word "evolution" for example had a specific meaning in 1859 which
it no longer has today, what was the meaning of genotype around 1900,
what did the original author of the word define it to mean, what was
his intent, agenda and world view. What is it that he didn't know back
then, that we know today. This
is important or we wind up with another situation like with the word
"evolution" - nobody knows what it is supposed to mean and what intent
we communicate with it.
--
fnord
backspace
Radu Popa, geobiologist and the author of Between Probability and
Necessity: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, says
that:"...A science in which the most important object has no definition
--that's absolutely unacceptable,..."
Indeed it is because it means that the definition of "selection" as
given by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selection under the
biology section is also undefined. Biology is just another word for
"life".
"..4.Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations..."
--
fnord
wf3h
> http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all
> Radu Popa, geobiologist and the author of Between Probability and
> Necessity: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, says
> that:"...A science in which the most important object has no definition
> --that's absolutely unacceptable,..."
you mean like the 'science' of theology and its key concept 'god'?
yes, i agree with you.
>
> Indeed it is because it means that the definition of "selection" as
> given byhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selectionunder the
> biology section is also undefined. Biology is just another word for
> "life".
uh...no.
'bio'....life
'ology' the study of.
wf3h
> And where did Johannsen get the idea of a genotype from ? In 1911 they
> didn't know about the
> The word "evolution" for example had a specific meaning in 1859 which
> it no longer has today, what was the meaning of genotype around 1900,
> what did the original author of the word define it to mean, what was
> his intent, agenda and world view. What is it that he didn't know back
> then, that we know today. This
> is important or we wind up with another situation like with the word
> "evolution" - nobody knows what it is supposed to mean and what intent
> we communicate with it.
>
> --
oh my GAWD!! the fundie has discovered that science
progresses...unlike religion.
no wonder he's confused.
wf3h
>
> English is not my mother tongue, it is Afrikaans. Ek is n boer van
> Suid Afrika.
ah. he's gone directly from the biblical creationist view that blacks
are niggers to the biblical creationist view that the earth is 6000
years old
yes, our southern baptists did that same theological trek..
backspace
2007 by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Professor_marginalia. I
can't deduce from his user page who the person is.
From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_drift page on 8 Dec.
2007 ".... And the term "chance" does warrant mention in some way--the
"chance" in genetic drift needs emphasis because it is distinguished
from the other significant evolutionary mechanism, natural selection,
where selection is based on adaptive advantage, ie not random chance
at all. In natural selection, the "samples" which over time
successfully reproduce in a population are not randomly selected. In
genetic drift, they are. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:30, 8 December
2007 (UTC)...."
question: 1) In what way is an adaptive advantage not random but
directed, who did the directing?
He says that the organisms which reproduce over time are not randomly
selected but in genetic drift they are randomly selected. Where did
marginalia get this information, he quotes nobody and references no
journals. Saying so doesn't make it so Marginalia, you need to tell us
who you are and motivate for your view. Remember Uncle Darwin never
used the word "random" or "non-random" in OoS. He used "chance" but
then kept it a huge surprise by stating somewhere that it is an
"incorrect expression". We must try and understand the intent Darwin
had a 150 years ago with "chance" - his intent isn't necessarily your
intent with the word in the context that he used it.
What Marginalia fails to understand is that organisms reproducing over
a time span where there was no will or motive involved are simply a
pattern - an event took place. Some species vanished and others are
still with us. Calling this a "success" is wrong because if another
species had survived forming a different pattern he would have told us
the exact same thing: It was a success, making his story
unfalsifiable. And a success is only achieved one the completion of
some predetermined goal - frogs don't have goals hence their existence
isn't a "success".
The materialist language terrorists are making success, non-random,
selection and directed undefined. The latest victim of their language
relativism seems to be the word "directed". Dr.Harshman has decreed
that by his authority as a materialist overlord and secular priest non-
random shall no longer mean "directed". Given the definition or
semantics of the word "success", it is not available to materialists
given their premises.
The question is not wether a bird species is a success, but how each
bird implements inverted pendulum control by coordinating its muscles,
nerves and brain signals in an interdependent manner.
--
fnord
wf3h
>>
> What Marginalia fails to understand is that organisms reproducing over
> a time span where there was no will or motive involved are simply a
> pattern - an event took place. Some species vanished and others are
> still with us. Calling this a "success" is wrong because if another
> species had survived forming a different pattern he would have told us
> the exact same thing: It was a success,
wow. a breathtaking example of creationist hysteria
does this idiot TRULY believe the environment has NO effect on
organisms? does he REALLY think that laboratory experiments on
evolution which demonstrate natural selection have NO applicabililty
in the real world?
seems backspace thinks the world simply does not exist.
truly incredible.
> making his story
> unfalsifiable.
i just pointed out how scientists evaluate natural selection as a
falsifiable mechanism.
>
> The materialist language terrorists are making success, non-random,
> selection and directed undefined.
says the guy who thinks 'god did it' is the most scientifically well
defined concept in history.
Woland
> The word "evolution" for example had a specific meaning in 1859 which
> it no longer has today, what was the meaning of genotype around 1900,
> what did the original author of the word define it to mean, what was
> his intent, agenda and world view. What is it that he didn't know back
> then, that we know today. This
> is important or we wind up with another situation like with the word
> "evolution" - nobody knows what it is supposed to mean and what intent
> we communicate with it.
Actually, everyone but you knows exactly what it means given the
context that it is used in. You are mentally ill.
Again, we don't need to know anything about the original use of a word
to use it today. People agree upon meanings of words without knowing
who first coined them all of the time. If what you keep babbling about
were true then all communication would be impossible and we would
never have developed agriculture or anything more complex than pointy
rocks and sticks.
Woland
> http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all
> Radu Popa, geobiologist and the author of Between Probability and
> Necessity: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, says
> that:"...A science in which the most important object has no definition
> --that's absolutely unacceptable,..."
>
> Indeed it is because it means that the definition of "selection" as
> biology section is also undefined. Biology is just another word for
> "life".
Actually the word 'biology' is composed of two parts; 'bio' from the
greek word for life and 'ology' also from the greek but from 'logos'
meaning 'speech' or 'word,' (among other things) so basically it means
to 'talk about life' or 'the study of life.'
Woland
> The genetic drift article had the non-random part added to NS on 8 Dec.
> can't deduce from his user page who the person is.
>
> 2007 ".... And the term "chance" does warrant mention in some way--the
> "chance" in genetic drift needs emphasis because it is distinguished
> from the other significant evolutionary mechanism, natural selection,
> where selection is based on adaptive advantage, ie not random chance
> at all. In natural selection, the "samples" which over time
> successfully reproduce in a population are not randomly selected. In
> genetic drift, they are. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:30, 8 December
> 2007 (UTC)...."
>
> question: 1) In what way is an adaptive advantage not random but
> directed, who did the directing?
Why do we have to keep going over this with you? I won't even offer a
guess as to how many times we've tried to explain this to you.
I use google groups to read and post (it sucks I know) which allows me
to scroll up and look at what people have said before. Do you lack
this function?
No one did the directing. If you really want to say that someone or
something did the directing then you could say that the environment
did the directing. Not literally though, we are using metaphor here
which I know that you have trouble with even though many if not most
of the words you use are actually 'dead metaphors'.
> He says that the organisms which reproduce over time are not randomly
> selected but in genetic drift they are randomly selected. Where did
> marginalia get this information, he quotes nobody and references no
> journals. Saying so doesn't make it so Marginalia, you need to tell us
> who you are and motivate for your view. Remember Uncle Darwin never
> used the word "random" or "non-random" in OoS. He used "chance" but
> then kept it a huge surprise by stating somewhere that it is an
> "incorrect expression". We must try and understand the intent Darwin
> had a 150 years ago with "chance" - his intent isn't necessarily your
> intent with the word in the context that he used it.
Actually we don't need to know anyones intent with anything. Tomorrow
we could wake up with all previous knowledge about evolution destroyed
and someone would still observe what was happening in nature and
publish something about it. Maybe even using different words!
> pattern - an event took place. Some species vanished and others are
> still with us. Calling this a "success" is wrong because if another
> species had survived forming a different pattern he would have told us
> the exact same thing: It was a success, making his story
> unfalsifiable. And a success is only achieved one the completion of
> some predetermined goal - frogs don't have goals hence their existence
> isn't a "success".
Again you are confused about how language actually works and how we
use words in different ways depending upon the context. Sometimes we
even use things like metaphors!
The way we are using 'success' in this context is without an expected
goal. See, what we are doing is observing nature and trying to
express what happens in nature. What we see is that some living
things create more offspring than others do of the same population and
that more of their offspring live to reproduce. We call this "greater
reproductive success,' we agree that it is a pattern and not a design.
We like to use the word succeed in this context, it's just useful.
Now that didn't actually happen, I don't even have slippers and I
usually don't slip on the ice, I think it has to do with playing lots
of hockey when I was younger.
You know, it doesn't have to be used in the sinse of a 'goal.' I
could say for example that, "I wore my slippers outside to get the
mail; I succeeded in slipping on the ice and breaking my nose."
You know what I really like about you is that
we all come up with examples that demonstrate that you are most
definitely wrong about something and you just ignore it and start
babbling about 'intent' and 'aphobetics' (which isn't actually a word
by the way).
backspace
wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> That's a random selection. Or watch them pick the lotto numbers on TV
> some time. Same thing.
>
> Now put a bunch of marbles in a bag, some black, some white. Take one
> out at random. If it's white, crush it with a hammer. If it's black, put
> it back and add another black marble to the bag too. How long before all
> the marbles are black?
Dr.Harshman another poster around here pointed out the error in your
passage. There is a difference
between a "selection at random" and a "random selection". Would you
please reformulate your ideas concerning this and repost?
backspace
> Actually the word 'biology' is composed of two parts; 'bio' from the
> greek word for life and 'ology' also from the greek but from 'logos'
> meaning 'speech' or 'word,' (among other things) so basically it means
> to 'talk about life' or 'the study of life.'
Yes, Woland I also have access to Google, now in what way does
pointing out this fact about the word biology invalidate my deduction
that the definition of selection as given by dictionary.com
is also undefined. Motivate your answer with reference to Prof.
Cleland(a she) and Radu Popa.
Part of the reason why these debates are so meaningless is that nobody
knows what the other believes about for example life itself. Some
might think that there is a rock solid definition but
can't motivate by quoting anybody. Some have never even thought about
the question: What is life?
Some say genes are a language while others that it is like a language.
I still for example don't know if Harshman believes genes are like a
language, he doesn't view genes as a language and he doesn't motivate
why not.
--
fnording
backspace
> The way we are using 'success' in this context is without an expected
> goal.
Then you can't use the word success because it is defined as reaching
a predetermined goal, use
some other word.
> See, what we are doing is observing nature and trying to
> express what happens in nature. What we see is that some living
> things create more offspring than others do of the same population and
> that more of their offspring live to reproduce.
And no matter what creature you find in nature you would tell me the
same story.
> We call this "greater reproductive success,'
Who is we? Who is this we person, tell me his name and where he
established your interpretation.
In Christianity you must motivate for your viewpoint by quoting
scripture if only materialists would motivate for their viewpoint by
quoting their sages. It is interesting to note that nobody around here
ever quotes OoS and no wonder who wants to be associated with somebody
that uses the word "chance" over 90 times and then somewhere on a
random page where he hopes nobody will actually read the rubbish he
wrote he states that it is an "...incorrect expression...", then why
did the fool use it to begin with in the first place ?
--
fnording