Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
backspace
The "Darwin's hypothesis" section contains a fraudulent misquotation:
"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved."
:The full quotation is:
"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection.
and the next paragraph
"But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival
of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.
We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great
results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the
accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand
of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power
incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's
feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art."
Darwin seems to imply that Natural Selection as some sort of nature
selection force is superior to mans "feeble" efforts. His intent with
the phrase [[Artificial selection]] also alludes to this. What
confuses the matter is that nobody knows what was his or Spencer's
intent with [[Survival of the Fittest]]. It could mean anything you
want it to mean. Natural selection must be discussed in terms of
[[Artificial selection]] and Survival of the Fittest since Darwin said
SoF is more "accurate" and how it relates to "feeble man" and
"nature's power of selection" as he put it in the passage dealing with
Artificial Selection. It is not clear what was Darwin's intent with
these three phrases and how they relate. He seems to be invoking
nature as some sort of conscious "selection" force, unless there are
passages that proves that it is not so.
:from http://www.gutenberg.org Darwin used artificial selection only
once in the book Origin of Species
"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."
Tracy P. Hamilton
On Sep 12, 12:44 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Darwin.27s_hypoth...
>
> The "Darwin's hypothesis" section contains a fraudulent misquotation:
> "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> useful, is preserved."
Actually, this is not quoting the section of "Darwin's hypothesis"
correctly.
Here is what it says:
"He defined natural selection as the "principle by which each slight
variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved".[34]"
Get the oak tree out of your eye before pointing out the imaginary
motes in others.
> :The full quotation is:
> "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> its relation to man's power of selection.
This doesn't further clarify the meaning of the term "natural
selection", but expalins why Darwin chose to use that particular term.
> and the next paragraph
> "But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival
> of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.
What?? Another term could have been used? Halt the presses!
> We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great
> results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the
> accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand
> of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power
> incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's
> feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art."
>
> Darwin seems to imply that Natural Selection as some sort of nature
> selection force is superior to mans "feeble" efforts.
Superior, as in in how often it is applied (look up incessantly, and
feeble).
> His intent with
> the phrase [[Artificial selection]] also alludes to this. What
> confuses the matter is that nobody knows what was his or Spencer's
> intent with [[Survival of the Fittest]].
People who are able to read with comprehension understand them quite
well.
[remaining stupidity deleted]
Tracy P. Hamilton
jcon
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Darwin.27s_hypoth...
>
> "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> useful, is preserved."
> :The full quotation is:
> "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> its relation to man's power of selection.
1. It's not a "fraudulent misquotation", in that the quoted part is
reproduced correctly, and the meaning (ie the definition
of "natural selection") is made clear in context. As a general
rule, accusing someone of malfeasance in the first sentence
is a very bad way to begin any discussion.
2. Wikipedia contains a very nice discussion section for this sort of
thing. USENET groups get enough spam without filling them
with arguments about minor wording modifications of Wikipedia
articles.
3. Wikipedia is open source. Make the change yourself.
-jc
John Harshman
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Darwin.27s_hypothesis_section_fraudulent_misquotation
>
> The "Darwin's hypothesis" section contains a fraudulent misquotation:
> "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> useful, is preserved."
> :The full quotation is:
> "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> its relation to man's power of selection.
> and the next paragraph
> "But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival
> of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.
> We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great
> results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the
> accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand
> of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power
> incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's
> feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art."
>
> Darwin seems to imply that Natural Selection as some sort of nature
> selection force is superior to mans "feeble" efforts.
Or perhaps he's using figurative language. I know that fundies have
trouble with metaphors. That's why they're fundies, after all. But try
to wrap your mind around the concept. Note that I'm not asking you to
literally wrap anything here; that too is a metaphor.
[snip further confusion caused by your apparent inability to understand
figurative language or to search for meaning beyond a short sound bite,
when Darwin wrote a whole chapter to explain the subject]
rupert....@gmail.com
[snip]
> :fromhttp://www.gutenberg.orgDarwin used artificial selection only
> once in the book Origin of Species
However he talks about artificial selection a lot. Pigeons, mostly,
but also cows and sheep, and some plants. You might want to try
reading the book instead of just searching the text.
[snip]
backspace
wrote:
> > :The full quotation is:
> > "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> > useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> > its relation to man's power of selection.
> This doesn't further clarify the meaning of the term "natural
> selection", but expalins why Darwin chose to use that particular term.
Exactly Darwin had his intent and you have yours. We really had no
idea what Darwin was talking about - was he a closet pantheist? Each
person basically just invents their own intent with NS. Why should I
believe you and not Darwin. Imagine if we all used the word "love" for
both the emotion of love and hate, don't you think society will become
mentally ill? YEC, Atheists, ID'sts are all suffering from some form
of language problem. SoF, NS, AS can mean anything you want to make
it mean. We are essentially dealing here with a form of language
relativism. For atheists everything is relative and they create their
own reality. Since consciousness and the language that comes from it
are just molecules in motion they can make language to mean whatever
they want to. Ken Ham with his "I believe in Natural Selection" is
just as dangerous to Christianity as PZ Meyers. It is is just heart
rendering to see those blank stairs from little children as Ham
explains to them that "evolution" is Godless. How do you know
something is Godless if you can't even define it ?
backspace
wrote:
> > Darwin seems to imply that Natural Selection as some sort of nature
> > selection force is superior to mans "feeble" efforts.
> Or perhaps he's using figurative language. I know that fundies have
> trouble with metaphors.
Why must you use metaphors to explain scientific concepts unless you
don't what exactly it is you are trying to say.
> But try
> to wrap your mind around the concept. Note that I'm not asking you to
> literally wrap anything here; that too is a metaphor.
What concept? What is your specific intent with "natural Selection" or
the Theory of evolution? What theory if only Wikipedia would give me
the theory. On their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution page they
inserted a section about Evolution as Fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_a_theory_and_fact which
redirects to some very long rant of argument from authority saying
stuff like Gravity is a fact therefore Evolution is a fact.
And until they tell me who's definition of evolution they are not even
wrong. Newton defined for us his law of gravity. Fourier defined for
us the Fourier series, but nobody can tell me who defined what
"evolution" means and how the person established it.
backspace
<rupert.morr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 5:44 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > once in the book Origin of Species
>
> However he talks about artificial selection a lot. Pigeons, mostly,
> but also cows and sheep, and some plants. You might want to try
> reading the book instead of just searching the text.
What about the pigeons and cows that both have use some Irreducible
Interdependent complex (IIC) feeback control mechanism to stabilize
themselves so that the don't fall from the sky or fall over walking,
got artificialed? Where in reading Darwin's book did he even discuss
the problem of keeping a finch wether short beak or long stabilised in
flight or
how the centre of gravity shifted in both short/long beak finches?
Arkalen
> On Sep 13, 2:31 am, "rupert.morr...@gmail.com"
>
> <rupert.morr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 5:44 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > once in the book Origin of Species
>
> > However he talks about artificial selection a lot. Pigeons, mostly,
> > but also cows and sheep, and some plants. You might want to try
> > reading the book instead of just searching the text.
>
> What about the pigeons and cows that both have use some Irreducible
> Interdependent complex (IIC) feeback control mechanism to stabilize
> themselves so that the don't fall from the sky or fall over walking,
> got artificialed? Where in reading Darwin's book did he even discuss
> the problem of keeping a finch wether short beak or long stabilised in
> flight or
> how the centre of gravity shifted in both short/long beak finches?
Newton didn't solve the three-body problem. I don't think anybody has
solved the three-body problem. Does that mean gravity is bunk ?
I mean, it's just three bloody stars of equal mass alone in space and
you just want to know their movements. How difficult can it be ?
So do you claim that the fact that nobody has a definitive answer to
that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity ? If so,
why ?
backspace
> Newton didn't solve the three-body problem. I don't think anybody has
> solved the three-body problem. Does that mean gravity is bunk ?
> I mean, it's just three bloody stars of equal mass alone in space and
> you just want to know their movements. How difficult can it be ?
>
> So do you claim that the fact that nobody has a definitive answer to
> that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity ? If so,
> why ?
I am talking about Newtons formula that the pull between two objects
are proportional to their distances squared. There is no confusion
about this. This is my pragmatics with the word "gravity" - simply
what Newton defined in a formula. Show us where in OriginSpecies did
Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved
in real-time by our brain to keep us walking upright while at the same
time multitasking and thinking what it should write next. It took
Japanese engineers decades and hundreds of papers in control theory to
produce the first walking robot. Evolutionists are claiming that
three phrases NS, AS and SoF explains everything. The control
algorithms that makes the robot walk is IIC - Irreducibly
Interdependently Complex. And by the same logic the control algorithms
that make the human gait possible are IIC. Miller argues that the
flagellum is not IC, would he extend the same argument to the control
algorithms that allow every single creature to propel itself in a
direction? How did the control algorithms independently arose in each
species - did the nature selection force natural the algorithms into
existence? Miller says Natural Selection is blind, well maybe it is
stupid as well, would this "stupid" natural selection force be able to
invent the algorithms.
But until we know Millers intent with NS he is not even wrong. For
example his intent could be the Gaia pantheist selection force
naturaled the correct differential equations that model the human
gait. Who knows? What is scary is that a 6-year old atheist
evolutionist is so certain about his "solution" that everything got
"naturaled" but he can't even spell differential equation. One can't
disassociate Artificial selection AND SoF from Natural Selection as
the evolutionists seem to be doing. SoF is a hugely problematic phrase
for Evolutionists and they don't know how to "massage" it out of
Origin Species.
>From Dembski's site: The latest post
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mary-midgley-to-debate-id-in-the-uk-october-3rd-kings-college-london/
"..Some of the claims of the supporters of versions of natural
selection, she holds, might more properly belong in the Religious
Education curriculum alongside Creationism and Intelligent Design...."
What is her intent with Natural Selection and how Natural Selection
solves in real-time the differential equations that keeps a bat in the
air. If she is not thinking in terms the brain of a human and animal
effortlessly solving differential equations of a IIC system then she
is clueless and why should we bother with her pragmatics with NS
whatever it is supposed to be?
SeppoP
> On Sep 13, 8:55 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Newton didn't solve the three-body problem. I don't think anybody has
>> solved the three-body problem. Does that mean gravity is bunk ?
>> I mean, it's just three bloody stars of equal mass alone in space and
>> you just want to know their movements. How difficult can it be ?
>>
>> So do you claim that the fact that nobody has a definitive answer to
>> that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity ? If so,
>> why ?
>
> I am talking about Newtons formula that the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared. There is no confusion
> about this. This is my pragmatics with the word "gravity" - simply
> what Newton defined in a formula. Show us where in OriginSpecies did
> Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved
> in real-time by our brain to keep us walking upright while at the same
> time multitasking and thinking what it should write next. It took
> Japanese engineers decades and hundreds of papers in control theory to
> produce the first walking robot. Evolutionists are claiming that
> three phrases NS, AS and SoF explains everything.
Yep, they're known as Genetic Algorithms. They basically work like this:
1. try to stand up and walk
2. fail and get gobbled up by a suitable predator
3. Succeed and spread your genes (with modifications).
<brainless babble gobbled up>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Arkalen
> On Sep 13, 8:55 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Newton didn't solve the three-body problem. I don't think anybody has
> > solved the three-body problem. Does that mean gravity is bunk ?
> > I mean, it's just three bloody stars of equal mass alone in space and
> > you just want to know their movements. How difficult can it be ?
>
> > So do you claim that the fact that nobody has a definitive answer to
> > that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity ? If so,
> > why ?
>
> I am talking about Newtons formula that the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared.
> There is no confusion
> about this.
You'd be surprised. Hey, pop quiz ! If I throw a ball straight up in
the air, at the millisecond it reaches the top of its trajectory
what's its acceleration ?
> This is my pragmatics with the word "gravity" - simply
> what Newton defined in a formula. Show us where in OriginSpecies did
> Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved
> in real-time by our brain to keep us walking upright while at the same
> time multitasking and thinking what it should write next.
How are equations of the nonexistence thereof relevant to what I
said ?
> It took
> Japanese engineers decades and hundreds of papers in control theory to
> produce the first walking robot.
As opposed to billions of years and billions of organisms it took for
evolution to produce the first walking organism. Wow, those Japanese
are GOOD !
> Evolutionists are claiming that
> three phrases NS, AS and SoF explains everything.
SoF is "Survival of the Fittest" ? It's just another name for "Natural
Selection". What's AS ?
Anyway, nobody claims that Natural Selection and Random Mutation (I
think that's what you meant) explain *everything*. The reality is a
bit more complicated, there's genetic drift, the founder effect,
fixation, various physical and environmental constraints, the nitty-
gritty of how genes and developement work most of which we don't
understand well yet...
Evolution like all things in the real world (including gravity) is
complicated. But like Newton's equations, NS+RM work well in a first
approximation. And as you don't understand the first approximation yet
we'll concentrate on that ok ?
> The control
> algorithms that makes the robot walk is IIC - Irreducibly
> Interdependently Complex. And by the same logic the control algorithms
> that make the human gait possible are IIC.
The simple fact of being IIC does not mean it's unevolvable. See the
mousetrap analogy :
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
So we know an "IIC" system can theoretically evolve. The question then
becomes : how did the specific system backspace is trying to stump us
with evolve ?
Answer : what an insteresting question ! Maybe you should ask the
scientists that are involved in researching this. But how is this
relevant to the validity of the Theory of Evolution any more than the
three-body problem is relevant to the validity of Newton's gravity ?
> Miller argues that the
> flagellum is not IC, would he extend the same argument to the control
> algorithms that allow every single creature to propel itself in a
> direction? How did the control algorithms independently arose in each
> species - did the nature selection force natural the algorithms into
> existence? Miller says Natural Selection is blind, well maybe it is
> stupid as well, would this "stupid" natural selection force be able to
> invent the algorithms.
What's the trajectory of three stars of comparable mass in an
otherwise empty space ?
(by the way, I like how ironclad your argument is. "maybe natural
selection is stupid ?")
> But until we know Millers intent with NS he is not even wrong. For
> example his intent could be the Gaia pantheist selection force
> naturaled the correct differential equations that model the human
> gait. Who knows? What is scary is that a 6-year old atheist
> evolutionist is so certain about his "solution" that everything got
> "naturaled" but he can't even spell differential equation.
A 6-year old atheist evolutionist is as certain of things as a 6-year
old evangelical christian, or a 6-year old muslim or bouddhist or
wicca. The point is, 6-year olds believe in what they believe because
of what they have been told, they haven't had time to do their own
research to make up their own mind. So what a 6-year old thinks is not
relevant to the debate. (sorry 6-year olds. Good thing most of you
can't read this post anyway.)
> One can't
> disassociate Artificial selection AND SoF from Natural Selection as
> the evolutionists seem to be doing. SoF is a hugely problematic phrase
> for Evolutionists and they don't know how to "massage" it out of
> Origin Species.
Oh, THAT's what AS was ! Well you'll be happy to know AS's influence
on evolution is negligible, it only applies to species that were
domesticated by humans. And not even always then. (if the human-made
selection is involuntary it should probably be called natural
selection. Otherwise any species that influences the reproduction of
another species can be said to do artifical selection)
Why couldn't we disassociate artifical selection from natural
selection ? You may have a weird definition of AS, mine is "humans
deliberately selecting and breeding living things for a desirable
trait". This is different from natural selection because of the
"humans deliberately". It can be considered a form of natural
selection I suppose, in the same way we consider humans animals. But
the distinction is still meaningful.
> >From Dembski's site: The latest post
>
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mary-midgley-to-deb...
> "..Some of the claims of the supporters of versions of natural
> selection, she holds, might more properly belong in the Religious
> Education curriculum alongside Creationism and Intelligent Design...."
>
> What is her intent with Natural Selection and how Natural Selection
> solves in real-time the differential equations that keeps a bat in the
> air. If she is not thinking in terms the brain of a human and animal
> effortlessly solving differential equations of a IIC system then she
> is clueless and why should we bother with her pragmatics with NS
> whatever it is supposed to be?
Her intent with natural selection is the same I've defined for you a
thousand times now. As for how she thinks it explains bat flight...
Have you solved the three-body problem yet ? If gravity is valid and
simply expressed in concise mathematical equations you should be able
to solve it in a few hours with a pen and paper. Go ahead, we'll wait.
You don't even need to use Einstein's version, Newton's will suffice.
John Harshman
> On Sep 13, 12:22 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>Darwin seems to imply that Natural Selection as some sort of nature
>>>selection force is superior to mans "feeble" efforts.
>
>
>>Or perhaps he's using figurative language. I know that fundies have
>>trouble with metaphors.
>
> Why must you use metaphors to explain scientific concepts unless you
> don't what exactly it is you are trying to say.
Metaphors are a feature of human language that aids communication. If
you want to describe what something is like, comparing to something else
that the reader already knows is useful.
>>But try
>>to wrap your mind around the concept. Note that I'm not asking you to
>>literally wrap anything here; that too is a metaphor.
>
> What concept?
The concept that Darwin was using figurative language.
> What is your specific intent with "natural Selection" or
> the Theory of evolution?
Natural selection is differential expected reproductive success of
different genotypes in particular environments.
The theory of evolution is more difficult to define, being a much bigger
thing, but I would consider its core to be the claim that all life on
earth is descended from one or a very few common ancestors.
> What theory if only Wikipedia would give me
> the theory. On their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution page they
> inserted a section about Evolution as Fact
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_a_theory_and_fact which
> redirects to some very long rant of argument from authority saying
> stuff like Gravity is a fact therefore Evolution is a fact.
> And until they tell me who's definition of evolution they are not even
> wrong. Newton defined for us his law of gravity. Fourier defined for
> us the Fourier series, but nobody can tell me who defined what
> "evolution" means and how the person established it.
That's because you are unwilling to understand anything other people
tell you. OK, let's say that evolution means common descent of life.
Nobody established that all at once, but many people over the past 150
years or so established various bits of it. For example, I have recently
cited for you a paper that establishes that humans are related to
chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. There are many other
papers that do the same, and countless more that establish other
relationships.
Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
forever.
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
In the foot-shooting department.
>I am talking about Newtons formula that the pull between two objects
>are proportional to their distances squared. There is no confusion
>about this. This is my pragmatics with the word "gravity" - simply
>what Newton defined in a formula. Show us where in OriginSpecies did
>Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved in
>real-time by our brain to keep us walking upright while at the same
>time multitasking and thinking what it should write next. It took
>Japanese engineers decades and hundreds of papers in control theory to
>produce the first walking robot. Evolutionists are claiming that three
>phrases NS, AS and SoF explains everything. The control algorithms that
>makes the robot walk is IIC - Irreducibly Interdependently Complex. And
>by the same logic the control algorithms that make the human gait
>possible are IIC. Miller argues that the flagellum is not IC, would he
>extend the same argument to the control algorithms that allow every
>single creature to propel itself in a direction?
this bit
>How did the control algorithms independently arose in each species -
Which would be better directed as an argument against independent
abiogenesis.
>did the nature selection force natural the algorithms into existence?
>Miller says Natural Selection is blind, well maybe it is stupid as
>well, would this "stupid" natural selection force be able to invent the
>algorithms.
One of the "laws" of biology is "evolution is cleverer than you are". On
the other hand evolution is short-sighted.
--
alias Ernest Major
Kermit
> On Sep 12, 8:26 pm, "Tracy P. Hamilton" <t_p_hamil...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > :The full quotation is:
> > > "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> > > useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> > > its relation to man's power of selection.
> > This doesn't further clarify the meaning of the term "natural
> > selection", but expalins why Darwin chose to use that particular term.
>
> Exactly Darwin had his intent and you have yours. We really had no
> idea what Darwin was talking about
Yes, *we do.
Metaphors are a necessary tools for communication. Even the Rabbi
Jesus of Nazareth used metaphors in his sermons.
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
Did a significant number of people in his audiences have no ears? Was
he speaking advice to folks who were possibly deaf?
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's
eye."
Did he really think that some people have logs in their eyes? Was he
confining his advice only to siblings?
Have you ever
embraced an idea
grasped a concept
see a joke fly over someone's head
?
> - was he a closet pantheist?
No. Why on Earth would you think so?
> Each person basically just invents their own intent with NS.
Nonsense.
> Why should I
> believe you and not Darwin.
Since you do not understand Darwin, nor anyone else as far as I can
tell, it hardly matters.
> Imagine if we all used the word "love" for
> both the emotion of love and hate, don't you think society will become
> mentally ill? YEC, Atheists, ID'sts are all suffering from some form
> of language problem. SoF, NS, AS can mean anything you want to make
> it mean. We are essentially dealing here with a form of language
> relativism.
Language is not in free fall (that's a metaphor) simply because *you
have comprehension problems. I note that rather than offering
supporting evidence (a metaphor) for ID, or criticizing evidence for
mainstream (metaphor) evolutionary science, you merely insist that we
cannot understand each other when we do.
That dog doesn't hunt (ditto), son (ditto).
> For atheists everything is relative and they create their
> own reality. Since consciousness and the language that comes from it
> are just molecules in motion they can make language to mean whatever
> they want to.
Non sequitor. Why would a claim that consciousness is purely material
(not a part of evolutionary science) suggest that language is hit or
miss (I'm not going to list any more metaphors; there are simply too
many of 'em).
> Ken Ham with his "I believe in Natural Selection" is
> just as dangerous to Christianity as PZ Meyers.
Heaven forfend that Christianity be perceived as compatible with
reality. You serve it *so much better by demonstrating that proper
Christians cannot speak their own mother tongue, and must deny
demonstrable facts. Uh-huh. Yep.
> It is is just heart
> rendering to see those blank stairs from little children as Ham
> explains to them that "evolution" is Godless. How do you know
> something is Godless if you can't even define it ?
Good question. Since you don't understand anyone's definition of
evolution or evolutionary theory, you might want to stand over there
<points> until you do.
If you insist on staying underfoot, perhaps you could make yourself
useful and explain how God contributes to the process of rain, wind,
and weather in general. Bonus points for guessing my intent for that
sentence.
Kermit
UC
Yes, "heart rendering" it is.....on those "blank stairs"....
Was there something defective in the sperm from which you came?
backspace
> Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
> species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
> evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
> of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
> Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
> forever.
Lets presume that all creatures descended from a single cell. How does
this explain where the control algorithms comes from? What is your
mechanism - the nature selection force that naturaled all this first
common ancestor into existence. You will probably tell me that
evolutionary theory don't deal with abiogenesis - that depends
entirely on what you define as evolutionary theory. Until you define
evolutionary theory I would have no idea.
Arkalen
Have you solved the three-body theorem yet ?
UC
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
> > species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
> > evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
> > of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
> > Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
> > forever.
>
> Lets presume that all creatures descended from a single cell.
Given that all life on earth uses the same four amino acids, it seems
no other assumption is tenable.
> How does
> this explain where the control algorithms comes from? What is your
> mechanism - the nature selection force that naturaled all this first
> common ancestor into existence.
The origin of life is at present not completely understood. It
occurred once, somewhere on earth, a long time ago, and all traces of
that origin were long ago obliterated. The conditions on earth at the
time life originated were utterly unlike what they are today, and in
fact the exact nature of those conditions is not perfectly understood.
Of course, strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does not deal
with the origin of life, only with "descent with modification". The
study of origin of life itself is a different discipline altogether.
Asking evolution to explain the origin of life is like asking a car
mechanic to explain the molecular structure of steel alloys.
Arkalen
Oops, it's the three-body *problem* of course.
Whatever, I refuse to believe in gravity until you solve it.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
>>species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
>>evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
>>of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
>>Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
>>forever.
>
>
> Lets presume that all creatures descended from a single cell. How does
> this explain where the control algorithms comes from?
I don't know what you mean by "the control algorithms".
> What is your
> mechanism - the nature selection force that naturaled all this first
> common ancestor into existence.
If you persist in mangling simple English, which I think you do on
purpose to generate spurious confusion, there's no point in talking to you.
> You will probably tell me that
> evolutionary theory don't deal with abiogenesis - that depends
> entirely on what you define as evolutionary theory. Until you define
> evolutionary theory I would have no idea.
Nor is it profitable to talk to you when you keep moving your goalposts.
You started out asking what evolution is, which I defined clearly, and
who established it, which I also stated clearly and gave the parrot
paper as an example. You didn't ask for a justification of all of
evolutionary theory, or of abiogenesis, or of natural selection as a
mechanism. If you want me to justify everything anyone has ever said
about evolution, say so now and I'll just go away.
But if you want to talk about your original question (and snipping out
the question and the answer is not productive), then we can try it.
John Harshman
> On Sep 13, 1:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
>>>species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
>>>evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
>>>of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
>>>Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
>>>forever.
>>
>>Lets presume that all creatures descended from a single cell.
>
>
> Given that all life on earth uses the same four amino acids, it seems
> no other assumption is tenable.
You have confused amino acids with purine/pyrimidine bases. There are 20
standard amino acids in proteins, and four bases in DNA.
[snip]
backspace
> > How does
> > this explain where the control algorithms comes from? What is your
> > mechanism - the nature selection force that naturaled all this first
> > common ancestor into existence.
> The origin of life is at present not completely understood. It
> occurred once, somewhere on earth, a long time ago, and all traces of
> that origin were long ago obliterated. The conditions on earth at the
> time life originated were utterly unlike what they are today, and in
> fact the exact nature of those conditions is not perfectly understood.
> Of course, strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does not deal
> with the origin of life, only with "descent with modification". The
> study of origin of life itself is a different discipline altogether.
> Asking evolution to explain the origin of life...
There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
hypothesis explains anything. The mechanism that is responsible for
life would logically be responsible for the common descent of life as
well. Lets say this common ancestor that we all finally agree was
chimp that showed it's willy for all the monkey babes
transmutated(Darwin's words) or morphed or whatever into a human. In
what way would this prove or disprove the existence of God, since we
don't know what was the mechanism? The mechanism is the issue and as
Berlinski said:"...Natural selection as some sort of universal
mechanism is just as implausible as a universal differential equation
explaining all of physics..."
If you wish to see how destructive this phrase "natural selection" is
in a peer reviewed article in biology replace it with "Ninja turtles"
and evolution with "Astec Cosmology". And then try and see if you are
still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
article.
Arkalen
LOL ! This must be your greatest claim yet !!!
Why don't you take an astronomy paper and replace, say, "black hole"
with "Ninja turtles" and "big bang" with "Astec Cosmology". Or why
don't you take War and Peace and replace "war" with "Ninja turtles"
and "peace" with 'Astec Cosmology".
Or why don't you learn to spell "Aztec".
Or why don't you solve the three-body problem.
Oh, and "started "naturaling" all over the article" sounds dirty.
UC
wrote:
Right. Sorry for the error.
backspace
wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
> >>species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
> >>evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
> >>of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
> >>Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
> >>forever.
>
> > Lets presume that all creatures descended from a single cell. How does
> > this explain where the control algorithms comes from?
>
> I don't know what you mean by "the control algorithms".
Extend your arm in front of you and hold a weight. Now keep it steady
as I add additional weight. Your brain has established what is called
in control theory a "Set point" that is to keep your arm at a certain
level irrespective of what weight it has to bear. As I put on a 1kg
disk your muscles sends back signal via the nerves to the brain
telling it that there is added weight. The brain calculates how much
additional tension in your deltoids must be produced to counter this
added weight. It will be some sort of proportional , derivative or
integral signal in classical control theory, but the brain uses neural
control.
This control mechanism is universal in lets just keep this to mammals
for now. We are told over and over about some
stupid lame gazelle who could not run fast enough and was munched by
the ferocious tiger and how the stronger gazelle ran away. What people
completely fail to grasp is that this is a red herring. The real
question is how did the PID control mechanism in both the dead gazelle
and live stronger gazelle arose in the first place? Where did it come
from, because as any control engineer will tell you a feedback control
loop is *Irreducibly interdependently complex* .
This is just a point of logic - you either have the control algorithm,
nerves and actuating muscles all working in sinc all at once or you
have a dead gazelle to begin with - the thing won't even walk and
would die of starvation before the fearsome tiger would get it.
Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
into a human. How on earth did the brain change the control
algorithms? And not just the algorithms how did the muscles and
algorithms interdependently cooperate at the first moment this chip/
human hybrid arose?
The flagellum's mechanical parts we can at least sketch and visualize.
What is not even being discussed is the control algorithm inside the
flagellum that in an *Irreducibly interdependent* way senses the
viscosity of the fluid and then actuates the stator and motor to
propel it at just the right speed through the fluid. How do we even
begin to write down the equations for this? The flagellum has some
sort of *goal* it wants to move from A to B. If the rotor turns to
fast it will overshoot and to slow it will undershoot. For the
flagellum to reach its target it must implement PID control
proportional, derivative and integral so that it accelerates with just
enough force to reach the B position. And the same for the gazelle, it
must jump the small stream so that it doesn't fall into it yet not
exert so much force that it jumps into the rocks on the other side. We
thus a have some sort of universal control mechanism that uses PID
control to propel both the gazelle, human, ape, fish,whale and
flagellum. How did this IC (Behe pragmatics)control mechanism arose
independently in all living creatures
from the flagellum to the blue whale?
I would like everybody to really try and get to grips with the problem
specification. Formulate your theory in terms of the problem
specification and we might stop these nonsense stories about stronger
and bigger tigers being stronger and bigger because the weaker tiger
is dead. Our whole culture is bogged down in one huge tautological
mess. Our language has become tautological.
UC
What are you talking about? Is there a name for what's wrong with you?
Tracy P. Hamilton
> On Sep 13, 8:55 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is my pragmatics with the word "gravity" - simply
> what Newton defined in a formula. Show us where in OriginSpecies did
> Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved
> in real-time by our brain to keep us walking upright while at the same
> time multitasking and thinking what it should write next.
So the reason infants can't walk is that they can't solve differential
equations yet?
And the high-wire experts must be solving these equations in quadruple
precision?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Bob T.
Yes. It's called "The backspace phenomenon." I don't think that he
'selected' it - it just came 'naturally'.
- Bob T.
Cheezits
[babbling deleted]
> And then try and see if you are
> still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
> trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
> article.
There is no such word as "naturaling". Please update your bot so that it
produces grammatical sentences,
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Tracy P. Hamilton
> On Sep 12, 8:26 pm, "Tracy P. Hamilton" <t_p_hamil...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > :The full quotation is:
> > > "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> > > useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> > > its relation to man's power of selection.
> > This doesn't further clarify the meaning of the term "natural
> > selection", but expalins why Darwin chose to use that particular term.
>
> Exactly Darwin had his intent
in choosing a term
> and you have yours.
I did not choose a term, so could not have an intent in choosing a
term. My intent is to show lack of comprehension on your part. I did
not need the further assistance provided by your additional posts.
[snip]
> It is is just heart
> rendering to see those blank stairs from little children as Ham
> explains to them that "evolution" is Godless. How do you know
> something is Godless if you can't even define it ?
god·less / g dl s/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[god-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic.
2. wicked; evil; sinful.
This is from dictionary.com.
Is "evolution" Godless? What about chemistry?
Tracy P. Hamilton
Bill Hudson
Talk about red herrings!
Why do you think the Gazelle needs a feedback mechanism other than
"TIGER!! RUN AWAY!"?
The mechanism you describe doesn't exist, nor should it. The
interaction between predator and prey, and its effect on the evolution
of both species is a complex interplay between speed, hunger,
alertness, fear, determination, genetic variation, and the
differential reproductive success of both species.
>... Where did it come
> from, because as any control engineer will tell you a feedback control
> loop is *Irreducibly interdependently complex* .
That's your problem. If you want to talk to an engineer, you need to
ask him/her questions about constructed things, not biology. If you
want to know the answer to questions about biology, then you need to
ask a biologist. If you ask questions, they will usually answer. Of
course, it helps if you are actually *interested* in the answers,
rather than trying to score rhetorical points on someone's scoreboard
somewhere.
>
> This is just a point of logic - you either have the control algorithm,
> nerves and actuating muscles all working in sinc all at once or you
> have a dead gazelle to begin with - the thing won't even walk and
> would die of starvation before the fearsome tiger would get it.
This is a rather lame variant of the 'irreducibly complex' argument.
The argument fails on several points. First, and foremost, the
argument is based only on personal incredulity. You don't think it
could evolve, therefore it can't. This is false, as it has been shown
over and over again, for various features of various species, that
these characteristics *can* and *do* evolve. Second, the whole idea
of IC is that if you remove a single piece of the system, the system
fails. However, it has been shown that these complex inter-dependent
systems can arise through routes where each step in the system confers
a selection advantage. This is true at the molecular level (where the
idea of IC was first proposed) and at the behavioral level, where you
are trying to shoehorn IC into the behavior of a prey animal. Now,
back to our poor gazelles: Your argument appears to be that if an
animal doesn't have control over it's muscles then it is lunch for
predators. This is a no-brainer. Of course that is true. But how
about we not cut out the entire evolutionary history of the animal
like you have done. Do simple single-celled organisms have control of
their muscles? No, because they don't have muscle tissue. If you
compare simple organisms to more and more complex organisms, you will
find that other things get more complex along with gaining features
like muscles. Their nervous systems become more complex as well. It
doesn't happen overnight, as you seem to imply must be the case, but
rather over long periods of evolutionary time.
>
> Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
> into a human.
Pedant point: you mean the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. I have to give you credit for
not saying "monkey" though.
>... How on earth did the brain change the control
> algorithms? And not just the algorithms how did the muscles and
> algorithms interdependently cooperate at the first moment this chip/
> human hybrid arose?
A chimp/human hybrid is probably not possible since the two species
have different numbers of chromosomes, and that's not how we evolved
anyway. There is no 'hybridization' of a single individual. Rather
the features and characteristics of an entire species (or population
within a species) changes all together, gradually.
>
> The flagellum's mechanical parts we can at least sketch and visualize.
> What is not even being discussed is the control algorithm inside the
> flagellum that in an *Irreducibly interdependent* way senses the
> viscosity of the fluid and then actuates the stator and motor to
> propel it at just the right speed through the fluid.
I doubt such an algorithm exists. The supposed IC natures of the
bacterial flagellum has been dealt with here multiple times. Check
out the archive for more details. (http://www.talkorigins.org).
>... How do we even
> begin to write down the equations for this? The flagellum has some
> sort of *goal* it wants to move from A to B.
ITYM 'bacterium' not 'flagellum'. No, I really doubt it has that much
thought.
>... If the rotor turns to
> fast it will overshoot and to slow it will undershoot. For the
> flagellum to reach its target it must implement PID control
> proportional, derivative and integral so that it accelerates with just
> enough force to reach the B position. And the same for the gazelle, it
> must jump the small stream so that it doesn't fall into it yet not
> exert so much force that it jumps into the rocks on the other side. We
> thus a have some sort of universal control mechanism that uses PID
> control to propel both the gazelle, human, ape, fish,whale and
> flagellum. How did this IC (Behe pragmatics)control mechanism arose
> independently in all living creatures
> from the flagellum to the blue whale?
Independently? Who said anything about independently? Common
features tend to indicate a common ancestor.
>
> I would like everybody to really try and get to grips with the problem
> specification.
Another red herring.
>... Formulate your theory in terms of the problem
> specification and we might stop these nonsense stories about stronger
> and bigger tigers being stronger and bigger because the weaker tiger
> is dead.
You have not demonstrated that they are nonsense.
>... Our whole culture is bogged down in one huge tautological
> mess. Our language has become tautological.
Yours certainly has.
Arkalen
> On Sep 13, 7:49 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > John Harshman wrote:
>
> > >>Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
> > >>species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
> > >>evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
> > >>of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
> > >>Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
> > >>forever.
>
> > > Lets presume that all creatures descended from a single cell. How does
> > > this explain where the control algorithms comes from?
>
> > I don't know what you mean by "the control algorithms".
>
> Extend your arm in front of you and hold a weight. Now keep it steady
> as I add additional weight. Your brain has established what is called
> in control theory a "Set point" that is to keep your arm at a certain
> level irrespective of what weight it has to bear. As I put on a 1kg
> disk your muscles sends back signal via the nerves to the brain
> telling it that there is added weight. The brain calculates how much
> additional tension in your deltoids must be produced to counter this
> added weight. It will be some sort of proportional , derivative or
> integral signal in classical control theory, but the brain uses neural
> control.
your arm MOVED when it got the additional weight ? Has it not occured
to you that a simple feedback loop of "too low, raise the arm, too
high, lower it, raise it, lower... stop" was what was actually
happening ?
Why don't you learn something about neurology, nerves and reflexes
before making idiotic statements ?
Is it also impossible to evolve the control mechanisms for a six-
legged gait ?
Does the fact you have no idea what happens when three bodies of equal
mass interact invalidate Newton's Theory of Gravity ?
> This control mechanism is universal in lets just keep this to mammals
> for now. We are told over and over about some
> stupid lame gazelle who could not run fast enough and was munched by
> the ferocious tiger and how the stronger gazelle ran away. What people
> completely fail to grasp is that this is a red herring. The real
> question is how did the PID control mechanism in both the dead gazelle
> and live stronger gazelle arose in the first place? Where did it come
> from, because as any control engineer will tell you a feedback control
> loop is *Irreducibly interdependently complex* .
So's a mousetrap. Is it impossible to evolve a mousetrap ?
> This is just a point of logic - you either have the control algorithm,
> nerves and actuating muscles all working in sinc all at once or you
> have a dead gazelle to begin with - the thing won't even walk and
> would die of starvation before the fearsome tiger would get it.
>
> Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
> into a human.
You do realise humans also have fleas and scratch for them, don't
you ?
> How on earth did the brain change the control
> algorithms? And not just the algorithms how did the muscles and
> algorithms interdependently cooperate at the first moment this chip/
> human hybrid arose?
Why would it need to ? Chimpanzees are perfectly capable of walking on
two legs when they're young.
> The flagellum's mechanical parts we can at least sketch and visualize.
> What is not even being discussed is the control algorithm inside the
> flagellum that in an *Irreducibly interdependent* way senses the
> viscosity of the fluid and then actuates the stator and motor to
> propel it at just the right speed through the fluid.
Gods, you're getting worse and worse. Go read a book on bacteria and
biochemistry, you clueless idiot.
What the hell is "just the right speed" for a bacterium anyway ???
You're just spouting stuff randomly.
> How do we even
> begin to write down the equations for this?
I don't know, THE SAME WAY WE WRITE THE EQUATIONS FOR THE SOLUTION OF
THE THREE-BODY PROBLEM ?
What saddens me is that I'm sure you have no clue what I'm talking
about, but you seemed to have decided not to answer me anymore so I
can't explain. It won't stop me from answering you though given it's
the lurkers we're supposed to convince.
> The flagellum has some
> sort of *goal* it wants to move from A to B.
So does a river.
Not completely an apt analogy, it depends on how machine-like you
consider a bacterium to be. There are people who would agree with it
though.
> If the rotor turns to
> fast it will overshoot and to slow it will undershoot. For the
> flagellum to reach its target it must implement PID control
> proportional, derivative and integral so that it accelerates with just
> enough force to reach the B position. And the same for the gazelle, it
> must jump the small stream so that it doesn't fall into it yet not
> exert so much force that it jumps into the rocks on the other side. We
> thus a have some sort of universal control mechanism that uses PID
> control to propel both the gazelle, human, ape, fish,whale and
> flagellum. How did this IC (Behe pragmatics)control mechanism arose
> independently in all living creatures
> from the flagellum to the blue whale?
IT DID NOT ARISE INDEPENDENTLY YOU MORON.
Wow, I do seem to be getting slightly annoyed here.
The point is, the "control mechanisms" appeared at the same time
nervous systems/hormonal systems/chemical machinery of the cell did.
This means, what ? three or four independent appearances at most ?
> I would like everybody to really try and get to grips with the problem
> specification. Formulate your theory in terms of the problem
> specification and we might stop these nonsense stories about stronger
> and bigger tigers being stronger and bigger because the weaker tiger
> is dead. Our whole culture is bogged down in one huge tautological
> mess. Our language has become tautological.
I would like you to really try and solve the three-body problem. I
really don't see how we can consider Newtonian physics to be valid
when they haven't even solved that yet.
Bill Hudson
> On Sep 13, 4:34 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 12:26 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> > Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
>> > into a human.
>>
>> Pedant point: you mean the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
>> Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. I have to give you credit for
>> not saying "monkey" though.
>
> Why? That would have been more accurate.
No, that would have been less accurate.
Is this yet another of your bloviations over semantics? If so, I'll have
to add it to my list of "U.C.'s Howlers".
UC
No, it would have been more accurate to say 'monkey'.
Bill Hudson
yah, yah... why? (I just know I'm going to regret asking this...)
UC
"Monkey: a member of the order Primates excepting man and usually also
the lemurs and tarsiers"
Webster's Third New International Dictionary.
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sep 13, 2:31 am, "rupert.morr...@gmail.com"
>
> <rupert.morr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 5:44 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > :fromhttp://www.gutenberg.orgDarwinusedartificial selection only
> > > once in the book Origin of Species
>
> > However he talks about artificial selection a lot. Pigeons, mostly,
> > but also cows and sheep, and some plants. You might want to try
> > reading the book instead of just searching the text.
>
> What about the pigeons and cows that both have use some Irreducible
> Interdependent complex (IIC) feeback control mechanism to stabilize
> themselves so that the don't fall from the sky or fall over walking,
> got artificialed? Where in reading Darwin's book did he even discuss
> the problem of keeping a finch wether short beak or long stabilised in
> flight or
> how the centre of gravity shifted in both short/long beak finches?
Your complaint is that any book that does not discuss the flight
mechanics of finches is deficient? How large is your library?
Bill Hudson
I vaguely recall you trying to make this claim before. I guess I
can't *add* it, I'll have to just update it a bit. The counter-
claim is the same as before: a) Websters Third New International
Dictionary is not a biology reference. b) That definition would also
lump all of the apes in with 'monkey'. c) 'monkey' has a different
definition than 'ape' in the field of primatology. d) Man is an ape,
so are gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans, and so was the
common ancestor of all of these species. e) You are making the same
asinine semantic objections to biological concepts that you have
always made, therefore you are still very wrong.
Why don't you go find something constructive to do instead of
pestering people with your stupid semantic rules that nobody except
you follows?
John Harshman
> On Sep 13, 7:49 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>backspace wrote:
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>Here's another, chosen at random, that shows the relationships among all
>>>>species of parrots: de Kloet, R. S., and S. R. de Kloet. 2005. The
>>>>evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: Sequence analysis of an intron
>>>>of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the
>>>>Psittaciformes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 36:706-721. I could go on like that
>>>>forever.
>>
>>>Lets presume that all creatures descended from a single cell. How does
>>>this explain where the control algorithms comes from?
>>
>>I don't know what you mean by "the control algorithms".
[snip tedious explanation]
> Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
> into a human. How on earth did the brain change the control
> algorithms? And not just the algorithms how did the muscles and
> algorithms interdependently cooperate at the first moment this chip/
> human hybrid arose?
That doesn't sound like a problem to me. But first let's remove your
bizarre terminology. A flea scratching chimpanzee didn't turn into a
human, nor was there a chimp/human hybrid. What there was was a common
ancestor of both humans and chimps, which looked a bit like a human in
some ways, a bit like a chimp in others, and a bit different from both
in still others. Let's call it an ancestral ape. Like any animal, it had
control algorithms, if that's what you want to call them, that fit its
body. Its ancestors had control algorithms of their own going way back.
Now perhaps one algorithm fits all, in which case there's no need to
change. Or perhaps if your arm length changes again, the optimal control
algorithm is slightly different too. In which case, it's easy. If
there's any individual variation in control algorithms and arm lengths,
then an individual whose control algorithm matched his arm length would
be selectively better than one whose features didn't match. And if there
were selection to increase/decrease arm length, that would produce
simultaneous selection to change the control algorithm to fit. It's not
all or nothing at all.
> The flagellum's mechanical parts we can at least sketch and visualize.
> What is not even being discussed is the control algorithm inside the
> flagellum that in an *Irreducibly interdependent* way senses the
> viscosity of the fluid and then actuates the stator and motor to
> propel it at just the right speed through the fluid. How do we even
> begin to write down the equations for this? The flagellum has some
> sort of *goal* it wants to move from A to B. If the rotor turns to
> fast it will overshoot and to slow it will undershoot. For the
> flagellum to reach its target it must implement PID control
> proportional, derivative and integral so that it accelerates with just
> enough force to reach the B position. And the same for the gazelle, it
> must jump the small stream so that it doesn't fall into it yet not
> exert so much force that it jumps into the rocks on the other side. We
> thus a have some sort of universal control mechanism that uses PID
> control to propel both the gazelle, human, ape, fish,whale and
> flagellum. How did this IC (Behe pragmatics)control mechanism arose
> independently in all living creatures
> from the flagellum to the blue whale?
Who says it arose independently in every species? Why couldn't it be
modified from ancestor to descendent just like I say above?
> I would like everybody to really try and get to grips with the problem
> specification. Formulate your theory in terms of the problem
> specification and we might stop these nonsense stories about stronger
> and bigger tigers being stronger and bigger because the weaker tiger
> is dead. Our whole culture is bogged down in one huge tautological
> mess. Our language has become tautological.
Nothing you mention above is tautological, so I'm puzzled.
But the bigger problem is that every time I respond to you, you snip
most of what I said and move your goalposts. I find this annoying and
will probably stop answering you if this continues. Here, let me restor
some important text:
John Harshman
> On Sep 13, 5:55 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 13, 2:47 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 13, 5:38 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:41:23 +0000, UC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sep 13, 4:34 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sep 13, 12:26 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>>Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
>>>>>>>into a human.
>>
>>>>>>Pedant point: you mean the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
>>>>>>Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. I have to give you credit for
>>>>>>not saying "monkey" though.
>>
>>>>>Why? That would have been more accurate.
>>
>>>>No, that would have been less accurate.
>>
>>>>Is this yet another of your bloviations over semantics? If so, I'll have
>>>>to add it to my list of "U.C.'s Howlers".
>>
>>>No, it would have been more accurate to say 'monkey'.
>>
>>yah, yah... why? (I just know I'm going to regret asking this...)
>
> "Monkey: a member of the order Primates excepting man and usually also
> the lemurs and tarsiers"
>
> Webster's Third New International Dictionary.
Pay no attention to UC. He's only trolling. In this case he's stating a
position in direct opposition to his previous claims that extinct
species cannot be referred to by vernacular terms.
I would have said "ape"; more restrictive and hence more precise, which
UC likes. But "monkey" is fine. Apes are monkeys, just as humans are apes.
Cory Albrecht
> There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
> abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
> the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
> where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
> hypothesis explains anything. The mechanism that is responsible for
That's a load of manure, and you know it.
What you are suggesting is similar to saying:
Because scientists can't prove how gravity is transmitted
how can they even begin to explain that things will fall
down when you drop them.
I'd really love to know your pragmatics in playing out this "I'm to
dense to understand what everybody has written about it" game. Either
you truly are that stupid and cannot pick up what a term means through
context, or you are deliberately being deceptive. Which would you prefer
I think?
Bill Hudson
wrote:
You're right, of course, but he gets me going (which I suppose is the
goal of the troll).
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sep 13, 7:29 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How does
> > > this explain where the control algorithms comes from? What is your
> > > mechanism - the nature selection force that naturaled all this first
> > > common ancestor into existence.
> > The origin of life is at present not completely understood. It
> > occurred once, somewhere on earth, a long time ago, and all traces of
> > that origin were long ago obliterated. The conditions on earth at the
> > time life originated were utterly unlike what they are today, and in
> > fact the exact nature of those conditions is not perfectly understood.
> > Of course, strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does not deal
> > with the origin of life, only with "descent with modification". The
> > study of origin of life itself is a different discipline altogether.
> > Asking evolution to explain the origin of life...
>
> There is no person by the name of "evolution".
Nobody ever claimed that there was.
> I am not asking some
> abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
> the origin of life.
What has that to do with evolution? Evolution starts after the first
living organisms are created.
> If you as a human can't even begin to explain
> where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
> hypothesis explains anything.
In just the same way that if I know the velocity and direction of
flight of a ball I can predict its course without needing to know if
it was thrown, hit with a club, or shot by a gun.
> The mechanism that is responsible for
> life would logically be responsible for the common descent of life as
> well.
Why? That's equivalent to saying that the mechanism which propelled
the ball in the first place is logically responsible for the
trajectory of the ball once it is in motion.
> Lets say this common ancestor that we all finally agree was
> chimp
No scientist has ever suggested chimps as human ancestors.
> that showed it's willy for all the monkey babes
Please don't project your exhibitionist fantasies onto your common
ancestor fabrications. It's hard for the squeamish to take.
> transmutated(Darwin's words) or morphed or whatever into a human.
What's wrong with "evolved"?
> In
> what way would this prove or disprove the existence of God,
What the hell has God to do with it?
This is as much of a non-sequitur as asserting that a knowledge of the
trajectory of a ball in space can prove or disprove the existence of
God.
> since we
> don't know what was the mechanism?
We have a very good grasp of the mechanisms involved. Why not read a
few books on the subject?
> The mechanism is the issue and as
> Berlinski said:"...Natural selection as some sort of universal
> mechanism is just as implausible as a universal differential equation
> explaining all of physics..."
Quite so. Who is claiming natural selection as any sort of "universal
mechanism"? Evolutionary biologists aren't even claiming natural
selection as the only factor involved in evolution.
> If you wish to see how destructive this phrase "natural selection" is
> in a peer reviewed article in biology replace it with "Ninja turtles"
> and evolution with "Astec Cosmology". And then try and see if you are
> still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
> trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
>
I note that you still ignore my offer to post a list of suitable
reading material which will help overcome the evident lack of
"pragmatics" you demonstrate when it comes to evolutionary biology.
Why is this? Are you afraid that if you learned something you would
find out that you've been making a fool of yourself?
RF
UC
So? What does that mean?
> b) That definition would also
> lump all of the apes in with 'monkey'.
Probably. So?
> c) 'monkey' has a different
> definition than 'ape' in the field of primatology.
Says who? 'Monkey' is a vernacular term.
> d) Man is an ape,
Nope.
> so are gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans,
gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans are apes, and so are
some other species.
> and so was the
> common ancestor of all of these species.
Nope. 'Ape' refers to modern animals.
> e) You are making the same
> asinine semantic objections to biological concepts that you have
> always made, therefore you are still very wrong.
How cute you look when you turn purple in the face!
>
> Why don't you go find something constructive to do instead of
> pestering people with your stupid semantic rules that nobody except
> you follows?
I posted a quote from a dictionary. Go argue with them, not me.
backspace
I have posted this probably 10 times now. You are committing a logical
fallacy known as *Appeal to Abstract Authority*. For the record
science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do.
There is no such person by the name of science and thus there is no
such thing as "...according to science...", no it is according
somebody with this person particular pragmatics and aphobetics or
agenda. We all have agendas. What is interesting is that Wilkins and
UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound
of silence from them, just watch and see. And Dr.Wilkins is great fan
of exposing logical fallacies, on his blog he probably goes through
over 20 but he dares not touch the Appeal to abstract authority.
UC
You're right. I always cite my sources.
backspace
wrote:
> That doesn't sound like a problem to me. But first let's remove your
> bizarre terminology. A flea scratching chimpanzee didn't turn into a
> human, nor was there a chimp/human hybrid. What there was was a common
> ancestor of both humans and chimps, which looked a bit like a human in
But before we came to this hybrid ape/human that looked a bit human
and a bit apeish the thing that came before it looked like an ape
didn't it? You are obfuscating that what evolutionists are saying is
that humans transmutated from a chimpanzee with this "common ancestor"
nonsense. But we spent nearly 4months discussing this and the
consensus view was that we evolved from a ape, which means that
evolutionists are insane.
> Like any animal, it had
> control algorithms, if that's what you want to call them, that fit its
> body. Its ancestors had control algorithms of their own going way back.
> Now perhaps one algorithm fits all, in which case there's no need to
> change. Or perhaps if your arm length changes again, the optimal control
> algorithm is slightly different too. In which case, it's easy. If
> there's any individual variation in control algorithms and arm lengths,
> then an individual whose control algorithm matched his arm length would
> be selectively better than one whose features didn't match. And if there
> were selection to increase/decrease arm length, that would produce
> simultaneous selection to change the control algorithm to fit. It's not
> all or nothing at all.
I do carefully read what you post and I note that you have waved your
magic wand and conjured up your universal mechanism that explains
everything - *selection*. In this paragraph you use *selection* twice
and *selectively* once, thus three times it was repeated. And as I
have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
nature selection force? You would say no, then why are you using the
word *selection* then because *selection* is the word human beings
have been using for thousands of years to communicate the pragmatics
of conscious teleological towards a goal selection - period. This is a
point of logic and you are making language itself undefined.
By the way you still haven't told me who defined "reproductive
success" as per Wikipedia entry.
Arkalen
Cory Albrecht didn't say "according to science" anywhere in his post
as far as I can see. You've gone from taking a short sentence in a
long post and going on a total tangent from it, to not saying anything
relevant at all. It's sad.
Arkalen
> On Sep 14, 1:40 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > That doesn't sound like a problem to me. But first let's remove your
> > bizarre terminology. A flea scratching chimpanzee didn't turn into a
> > human, nor was there a chimp/human hybrid. What there was was a common
> > ancestor of both humans and chimps, which looked a bit like a human in
> > some ways, a bit like a chimp in others...
>
> But before we came to this hybrid ape/human that looked a bit human
> and a bit apeish the thing that came before it looked like an ape
> didn't it? You are obfuscating that what evolutionists are saying is
> that humans transmutated from a chimpanzee with this "common ancestor"
> nonsense. But we spent nearly 4months discussing this and the
> consensus view was that we evolved from a ape, which means that
> evolutionists are insane.
"chimp". There's a fundamental difference, kind of like "kitchenware"
and "fork". Not only that, this distinction has been pointed out to
you many times. As long as you don't learn it you'll continue making
answers that are completely irrelevant to the previous post.
And while you're doing that, you might as well go the whole hog and
make up the other guy's argument like you did with Cory right ?
> > Like any animal, it had
> > control algorithms, if that's what you want to call them, that fit its
> > body. Its ancestors had control algorithms of their own going way back.
> > Now perhaps one algorithm fits all, in which case there's no need to
> > change. Or perhaps if your arm length changes again, the optimal control
> > algorithm is slightly different too. In which case, it's easy. If
> > there's any individual variation in control algorithms and arm lengths,
> > then an individual whose control algorithm matched his arm length would
> > be selectively better than one whose features didn't match. And if there
> > were selection to increase/decrease arm length, that would produce
> > simultaneous selection to change the control algorithm to fit. It's not
> > all or nothing at all.
>
> I do carefully read what you post and I note that you have waved your
> magic wand and conjured up your universal mechanism that explains
> everything - *selection*. In this paragraph you use *selection* twice
> and *selectively* once, thus three times it was repeated.
Three shall be the number of the repeating. You shall not repeat once,
or twice, unless you then proceed unto three. Four is right out.
> And as I
> have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
> forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
> nature selection force?
Yes.
> You would say no
He would ?
> then why are you using the
> word *selection* then because *selection* is the word human beings
> have been using for thousands of years to communicate the pragmatics
> of conscious teleological towards a goal selection - period. This is a
> point of logic and you are making language itself undefined.
UC's the one you want to talk to on this subject. I wonder if he
agrees with you on this subject in fact.
> By the way you still haven't told me who defined "reproductive
> success" as per Wikipedia entry.
What the hell ? Go see the talk page. But you'll only get a username.
Don't you know how Wikipedia works ?
Kermit
> On Sep 14, 3:58 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > backspace wrote, On 2007/09/13 14:23:
>
> > > There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
> > > abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
> > > the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
> > > where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
> > > hypothesis explains anything. The mechanism that is responsible for
>
> > That's a load of manure, and you know it.
>
> > What you are suggesting is similar to saying:
>
> > Because scientists can't prove how gravity is transmitted
> > how can they even begin to explain that things will fall
> > down when you drop them.
>
> > I'd really love to know your pragmatics in playing out this "I'm to
> > dense to understand what everybody has written about it" game. Either
> > you truly are that stupid and cannot pick up what a term means through
> > context, or you are deliberately being deceptive. Which would you prefer
> > I think?
>
> I have posted this probably 10 times now.
More, I think. But you don't seem to understand our responses.
> You are committing a logical
> fallacy known as *Appeal to Abstract Authority*. For the record
> science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do.
Correct. "Science" is a metaphorical shorthand for saying "the society
of people who work in the field of science, and whose behavior is
considered expert and representative or its accepted practices". Most
of us don't want to say all that every time, so we use a linguistic
shorthand.
> There is no such person by the name of science and thus there is no
> such thing as "...according to science...",
Sure there is. It is widely accepted language, and almost universally
understood with little effort. Typically, even those folks who
disbelieve mainstream evolutionary theory have no trouble
understanding us.
> no it is according
> somebody with this person particular pragmatics and aphobetics or
> agenda. We all have agendas.
Typically in science the agenda is to understand. Hence, our intent
when discussing meanings of words is to *explain or *define.
What is your agenda?
> What is interesting is that Wilkins and
> UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound
> of silence from them, just watch and see. And Dr.Wilkins is great fan
> of exposing logical fallacies, on his blog he probably goes through
> over 20 but he dares not touch the Appeal to abstract authority.
I googled "appeal to abstract authority" and got two hits: both of
them are posts by you. Could you reference where somebody else
discusses - preferably defines - this fallacy? Perhaps it normally
goes by another name.
It seems to be verbal shorthand for your saying "I don't understand
puns, metaphors, analogies, literary references, definitions, or folks
who simply discuss subjects in order to learn something." Am I
correct?
Kermit
John Harshman
> On Sep 14, 1:40 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>That doesn't sound like a problem to me. But first let's remove your
>>bizarre terminology. A flea scratching chimpanzee didn't turn into a
>>human, nor was there a chimp/human hybrid. What there was was a common
>>ancestor of both humans and chimps, which looked a bit like a human in
>>some ways, a bit like a chimp in others...
>
>
> But before we came to this hybrid ape/human
There was no hybrid ape/human.
> that looked a bit human
> and a bit apeish the thing that came before it looked like an ape
> didn't it?
They all look like apes. You look like an ape. Any ancestor would have
had some characteristics you have, and some that a chimp has, some that
both of you have, and some that neither of you has. The farther back in
time you go, the greater the percentage of characteristics will fall
into the last category.
> You are obfuscating that what evolutionists are saying is
> that humans transmutated from a chimpanzee with this "common ancestor"
> nonsense.
Nobody says that humans transmutated from a chimpanzee. I defy you to
find anyone who says that.
> But we spent nearly 4months discussing this and the
> consensus view was that we evolved from a ape, which means that
> evolutionists are insane.
You persist in being unable to understand simple English. "Chimpanzee"
and "ape" do not mean the same thing. A chimpanzee is one sort of ape.
There are many other sorts. One of them, no longer among the living, is
the human/chimp common ancestor. Got that? It's an ape, but not a chimp.
>>Like any animal, it had
>>control algorithms, if that's what you want to call them, that fit its
>>body. Its ancestors had control algorithms of their own going way back.
>>Now perhaps one algorithm fits all, in which case there's no need to
>>change. Or perhaps if your arm length changes again, the optimal control
>>algorithm is slightly different too. In which case, it's easy. If
>>there's any individual variation in control algorithms and arm lengths,
>>then an individual whose control algorithm matched his arm length would
>>be selectively better than one whose features didn't match. And if there
>>were selection to increase/decrease arm length, that would produce
>>simultaneous selection to change the control algorithm to fit. It's not
>>all or nothing at all.
>
> I do carefully read what you post and I note that you have waved your
> magic wand and conjured up your universal mechanism that explains
> everything - *selection*. In this paragraph you use *selection* twice
> and *selectively* once, thus three times it was repeated. And as I
> have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
> forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
> nature selection force?
You are in no position to forbid anything. There is no natural selection
force. The word "selection" acquired a new use from Darwin's book, one
that doesn't imply anyone is doing the selecting. Ocean waves can sort
sand grains by size and density on a beach. Who is doing the sorting?
Similarly, the environment can select phenotypes in a population,
increasing the frequency of some and decreasing the frequency of others.
Who is doing the selection?
> You would say no, then why are you using the
> word *selection* then because *selection* is the word human beings
> have been using for thousands of years to communicate the pragmatics
> of conscious teleological towards a goal selection - period. This is a
> point of logic and you are making language itself undefined.
No. Words can acquire new definitions and uses. They do it all the time.
A keyboard used to be something on a piano. Then it became something on
a typewriter, and later, on a computer. We still have piano keyboards
alongside the computer keyboards, and nobody complains. Similarly, we
still have natural selection alongside the old, teleological meaning of
the term, and nobody except you complains. You know what it means
anyway. Don't lie.
> By the way you still haven't told me who defined "reproductive
> success" as per Wikipedia entry.
Who cares who defined it, as long as we know what it means? Who defined
"horse"? Can you talk about horses even though you don't know?
Your habit of snipping almost everything I say without any response is
rude and dishonest, by the way.
John Harshman
> On Sep 14, 10:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>And as I
>>have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
>>forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
>>nature selection force?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>You would say no
>
> He would ?
Yes I would. There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
influences present in the environment. Calling it a force only obscures
meaning, which is of course backspace's stock in trade.
[snip]
backspace
> > This is just a point of logic - you either have the control algorithm,
> > nerves and actuating muscles all working in sinc all at once or you
> > have a dead gazelle to begin with - the thing won't even walk and
> > would die of starvation before the fearsome tiger would get it.
There is something I forgot to mention. If we evolved from this single
celled common ancestor 2billion or whatever years ago, then all these
control algorithms for each of the billions of creatures from the
flagellum to the elephant had to be present in the genome of this
first common ancestor. This violates what Berlinski called in Black
Mischief "..the rule against deferred success..." How could this
single celled organism hold the IIC control algorithm in "reserve" ,
*waiting* for the elephant to evolve a thousand million years down the
line? And this is just for the elephant, the exact same question
extends to all the dinosaurs and the billions of different species
from the flagellum to the wombat that exist or have existed. An
evolutionary 'just-so' story would be that some "elephant like
creature" competed against some other creature for resources, the
stronger one "survived". But no matter what you find in nature we
would be told the same story making it unfalsifiable. It also betrays
the clueless mentality of evolutionists, they are seemingly to stupid
to see the relationship between a Japanese walking robot and its
control algorithms and human being with its control algorithms. The
control algorithms in a walking robot IS Irreducibly Interdependently
Complex - this is a factual statement and no engineer would beg to
differ. Algorithms are abstract and we can't write down the equations
that make both a human, ape and elephant walk, but we can deduce that
the algorithms are there in some sort of analogues way to a Japanese
walking robot. Classical PID control theory allows us to at least get
some sort of conceptual framework.
Telling us about the same genes found in apes and man is like pointing
out that the walking robot and RC electric car use the same parts.
They use the same parts but the software routines and design
constraints that result in each individual function are different. For
each mechanical design different parameters for the control loops
needs to be used. You can't take the control loop and algorithms for
the walking robot and upload it to the CPU of the RC electric car and
expect speed control to
work.
> > Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
> > into a human.
> Pedant point: you mean the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
> Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. I have to give you credit for
> not saying "monkey" though.
Well tell that to http://www.toptenmyths.com, Prof Cameron Smith
provided a falsification test with his "Monkey" on
http://www.toptenmyths.com/myth6.html and then proceeded to falsify
his own falsification test in the next sentence! His book is such a
load of nonsense that even Harshman apologized for the asinine
scholarship.
Kermit
> On Sep 14, 1:40 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > That doesn't sound like a problem to me. But first let's remove your
> > bizarre terminology. A flea scratching chimpanzee didn't turn into a
> > human, nor was there a chimp/human hybrid. What there was was a common
> > ancestor of both humans and chimps, which looked a bit like a human in
> > some ways, a bit like a chimp in others...
>
> But before we came to this hybrid ape/human
It was not a hybrid. Why did this confuse you? It was straightforward
and concrete language.
> that looked a bit human and a bit apeish
It looked a little chimpish and a little human; it has always looked
completely apish from our common ancestor on down.
> the thing that came before it looked like an ape
> didn't it?
By definition, since it was an ape.
> You are obfuscating that what evolutionists are saying is
> that humans transmutated from a chimpanzee
No transmutations from a chimp. The ancestral species diverged (via
evolution) into at least three apes: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos.
> with this "common ancestor" nonsense.
If you think it's not correct, please explain why. If you are simply
trying to say that you can't maintain a conversation, that's OK too. I
knew that. But you can't refute facts by displaying linguistic
confusion. Pick a topic and stick with it.
> But we spent nearly 4months discussing this and the
> consensus view was that we evolved from a ape, which means that
> evolutionists are insane.
Could you explain why you think this?
>
> > Like any animal, it had
> > control algorithms, if that's what you want to call them, that fit its
> > body. Its ancestors had control algorithms of their own going way back.
> > Now perhaps one algorithm fits all, in which case there's no need to
> > change. Or perhaps if your arm length changes again, the optimal control
> > algorithm is slightly different too. In which case, it's easy. If
> > there's any individual variation in control algorithms and arm lengths,
> > then an individual whose control algorithm matched his arm length would
> > be selectively better than one whose features didn't match. And if there
> > were selection to increase/decrease arm length, that would produce
> > simultaneous selection to change the control algorithm to fit. It's not
> > all or nothing at all.
>
> I do carefully read what you post and I note that you have waved your
> magic wand and conjured up your universal mechanism that explains
> everything - *selection*. In this paragraph you use *selection* twice
> and *selectively* once, thus three times it was repeated. And as I
> have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
> forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
> nature selection force?
Select.
Select. Select. Select.
What is it that rains, when it rains? If you can't say, then don't
ever tell anyone again that "it" is raining. Or it's cold out. Or it's
breezy.
The rest of us understood what was doing the selection - environmental
factors. Natural selection, sexual selection (when appropriate),
drift, founder effect, fixation, etc.
> You would say no, then why are you using the
> word *selection* then because *selection* is the word human beings
> have been using for thousands of years to communicate the pragmatics
> of conscious teleological towards a goal selection - period. This is a
> point of logic and you are making language itself undefined.
No, you simply are having a hard time keeping up. Sorry about that.
20-20 vision isn't as important as it used to be, thank Darwin, but
language skills are.
>
> By the way you still haven't told me who defined "reproductive
> success" as per Wikipedia entry.
Reproducing is success. Those whose descendants are reproducing in
greater numbers than others of their species are more successful. Who
gives a freak about the Wiki article?
Kermit
UC
> On Sep 13, 10:34 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is just a point of logic - you either have the control algorithm,
> > > nerves and actuating muscles all working in sinc all at once or you
> > > have a dead gazelle to begin with - the thing won't even walk and
> > > would die of starvation before the fearsome tiger would get it.
>
> There is something I forgot to mention. If we evolved from this single
> celled common ancestor 2billion or whatever years ago, then all these
> control algorithms
Que????
> for each of the billions of creatures from the
> flagellum to the elephant had to be present in the genome of this
> first common ancestor.
Que??? 'Algorithms'?
> This violates what Berlinski called in Black
> Mischief "..the rule against deferred success..." How could this
> single celled organism hold the IIC control algorithm in "reserve" ,
> *waiting* for the elephant to evolve a thousand million years down the
> line? And this is just for the elephant, the exact same
"...very same..."
> question
> extends to all the dinosaurs and the billions of different species
> from the flagellum to the wombat that exist or have existed. An
> evolutionary 'just-so' story would be that some "elephant like
> creature" competed against some other creature for resources, the
> stronger one "survived". But no matter what you find in nature we
> would be told the same story making it unfalsifiable. It also betrays
> the clueless mentality of evolutionists, they are seemingly to stupid
"...too stupid..."
> to see the relationship between a Japanese walking robot and its
> control algorithms and human being with its control algorithms.
Que???
>The
> control algorithms in a walking robot IS
"...ARE..."
> Irreducibly Interdependently
> Complex - this is a factual statement and no engineer would beg to
> differ.
Que???
> Algorithms are abstract and we can't write down the equations
> that make both a human, ape and elephant walk,
Que???
> but we can deduce that
> the algorithms are there in some sort of analogues
"...analogous..."
> way to a Japanese
> walking robot. Classical PID control theory allows us to at least get
> some sort of conceptual framework.
>
> Telling us about the same genes found in apes and man is like pointing
> out that the walking robot and RC electric car use the same parts.
Que???
> They use the same parts but the software routines and design
> constraints that result in each individual function are different. For
> each mechanical design different parameters for the control loops
> needs to be used.
"...need to be used..."
>You can't take the control loop and algorithms for
> the walking robot and upload it to the CPU of the RC electric car and
> expect speed control to
> work.
>
> > > Lets take this fanciful story of a flea scratching chimpanzee turning
> > > into a human.
> > Pedant point: you mean the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
> > Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. I have to give you credit for
> > not saying "monkey" though.
>
> Well tell that tohttp://www.toptenmyths.com, Prof Cameron Smith
> provided a falsification test with his "Monkey" onhttp://www.toptenmyths.com/myth6.htmland then proceeded to falsify
Arkalen
wrote:
Ah. Semantics. But you're right, against backspace it's important to
get semantics right.
Richard Smol
> On Sep 12, 8:26 pm, "Tracy P. Hamilton" <t_p_hamil...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > :The full quotation is:
> > > "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> > > useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> > > its relation to man's power of selection.
> > This doesn't further clarify the meaning of the term "natural
> > selection", but expalins why Darwin chose to use that particular term.
>
> Exactly Darwin had his intent and you have yours. We really had no
> idea what Darwin was talking about - was he a closet pantheist?
Who knows? Who cares? Even if he would have been a raging Satanist, if
would have had no effect on the validity of his theory. Ad hominem
attacks are lame.
RS
Bill Hudson
Semantics are important for clarity of argument... unless you're U.C.,
in which case semantics are the *only* thing that's important.
Arkalen
> On Sep 13, 10:34 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is just a point of logic - you either have the control algorithm,
> > > nerves and actuating muscles all working in sinc all at once or you
> > > have a dead gazelle to begin with - the thing won't even walk and
> > > would die of starvation before the fearsome tiger would get it.
>
> There is something I forgot to mention. If we evolved from this single
> celled common ancestor 2billion or whatever years ago, then all these
> control algorithms for each of the billions of creatures from the
> flagellum to the elephant had to be present in the genome of this
> first common ancestor.
of human appearance exist in Adam and Eve ?") but evolution accepts
that genes can mutate and that species can change. That's kind of the
point of evolution, really.
Do tell us about your solution to the three-body problem instead !
(oh, and your analogy is bunk. Others will tell you why, I don't need
to since you won't answer me anyway)
<snip>
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If we evolved from this single
>celled common ancestor 2billion or whatever years ago, then all these
>control algorithms for each of the billions of creatures from the
>flagellum to the elephant had to be present in the genome of this
>first common ancestor.
No one claims this sort of "front loading" except Behe or Dembski, or
perhaps both of them , but not all the time and not very clearly. In
standard biology new traits develop over time.
Greg Guarino
Bob Berger
RE snipping: I agree.
RAM
> On 13 Sep, 19:23, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you wish to see how destructive this phrase "natural selection" is
> > in a peer reviewed article in biology replace it with "Ninja turtles"
> > and evolution with "Astec Cosmology". And then try and see if you are
> > still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
> > trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
>
> I note that you still ignore my offer to post a list of suitable
> reading material which will help overcome the evident lack of
> "pragmatics" you demonstrate when it comes to evolutionary biology.
>
> Why is this? Are you afraid that if you learned something you would
> find out that you've been making a fool of yourself?
I think he knows he is making a fool of himself; but his religious
need to try any tactic (foolish or not) at misrepresenting evolution
and/or science trumps his rational abilities. This is a dominant
characteristic of crationists here. Being a fool (or liar) for Christ
is not a sin but a way of testifying.
RAM
>
> RF
Cory Albrecht
Probably because it's some load of crapola you just made up.
And where did I say "according to science"? I didn't appeal to any
authority. Not only did I not commit some pretend logical fallacy of
yours, I didn't even do an ad hominem, since you don't even have an
argument to begin with.
Plainly and simply, I insulted you by calling you an idiot.
Do you know what a Venn diagram is? ISTR them being done in grade 10
math. Each circle indicates a set of items. If the circles overlap, then
some items are in both sets.
Finding a new term when reading, whether it's science, art, whatever, is
like building up a a mental Venn diagram. So you read one author, and
you see that to them <list-of-ideas> is part of <concept>, so that's
your first circle. Read a second author, and to them <concept> has
<second-list-of-ideas> and even though it's a different list many of its
items are still the same and thus you make a second venn circle in your
mind which overlaps the first and refines your knowledge of <concept>.
Repeat each time you read a new author who discusses <concept>.
You seem to be the only person on the planet who is incapable of
building up such mental venn diagrams to help them understand a topic.
In any case, to reinforce what I think of you:
http://images2.jokaroo.net/flash/youareanidiot.swf
Have a nice day. :-)
John Wilkins
I disagree. UC isn't talking about semantics, or he'd attend to actual
usage. He's talking about *semiotics*, which is defined as "whatever
Umberto Eco says". [Actually I have more respect for Eco than UC, but
some of his claims, such as "Kant couldn't have classified a platypus
except in prior conceptual terms like "water mole" is simply stupid, and
contrary to the actual history that followed.]
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
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."
John Wilkins
It's more than just semantics. Thinking of natural selection as a
mechanical force or power gets you into all kinds of confusions. NS is
an explanatory schema - when you have physical forces and causal
processes that apply in such and such a manner, then you get a
population under NS. When you don't, the result is drift (for that
trait).
NS is sometimes called a "mechanism", but it isn't an entity in its own
right - it's a dynamic of populations.
Matthew
> In any case, to reinforce what I think of you:
>
> http://images2.jokaroo.net/flash/youareanidiot.swf
>
> Have a nice day. :-)
>
Priceless!
Arkalen
I'm surprised, I thought I'd heard expressions like "selection force"
or "selective forces" or something used... To me it wasn't confusing
because I think of a force as something that causes other things to
change, which the environment and the selection it operates does to
populations. Like you could say that the default evolution for a
character is drift, but under "environmental forcing" i.e. selection
you get something different...
Which is what I meant when I said "semantics", i.e. "we seem to have
different conceptions of the same word which is what caused this
disagreement". I can see why you prefer not to use the phrase though.
I don't really agree with your reasons as far as my own personal use
goes but you're right that when talking to people who know nothing of
science, physics or evolution it's not a good expression to use.
backspace
>>have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
>>forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
>>nature selection force?
>Yes I would. There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
>Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
>midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
>influences present in the environment.
If something is the result or the effect then something had to be
cause. Thus the "influences" were the cause and this cause must then
be the nature selection force. There is no such thing as a "Natural
Selection", there might be such a thing as a "Nature Selection Force".
Using just "Natural Selection" is like imagine a person never speaks
in full sentences but always leaves out the last word in some sort of
asinine semantic game where he expects me to deduce his intent. It is
not for me figure out your intent with your language, merely to point
out that you are violating my rules of language: My intent with
*Selection* means conscious selection, it is not the word that is
important it is the intent that we convey with the word. Behe's
definition of Irreducible Complexity is not the issue but his intent
of Interdependence between abstract algorithms and mechanical parts.
>Calling it a force only obscures meaning, which is of course backspace's stock in trade.
The concept of an abstract *selection force* doesn't obscure any
meaning. We can visualize or understand the intent a person conveys by
explicitly stating that there is a nature selection force with a mind
all of its own selecting for the control algorithms in a frog and
eagle. That is as long as he communicates his intent. In your usage of
the word *selection* you leave out the word "force" and thus I can't
deduce your intent without asking you. You answer that you have no
conscious intent and then I point out that this means you are in some
sort of intimate cartoonish universe of language relativism where you
are inventing your own language reality, which is separate from my
language reality making communication between us essentially
impossible, since we communicate different pragmatics with the word
"selection".
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sep 14, 10:50 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>And as I
> >>have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
> >>forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
> >>nature selection force?
> >Yes I would. There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
> >Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
> >midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
> >influences present in the environment.
>
> If something is the result or the effect then something had to be
> cause. Thus the "influences" were the cause and this cause must then
> be the nature selection force. There is no such thing as a "Natural
> Selection", there might be such a thing as a "Nature Selection Force".
I see.
So there is no such thing as "gravity", only "gravity force".
Or, to put it another way, when are you going to stop spouting
bullshit and educate yourself in science in general and biology in
particular.
If you want to learn I (and no doubt others) can post recommendations
for where to start. If you don't want to learn (and your posting
history suggests that this is the case), why on earth should anyone
treat your posts as anything other than silly attempts to obfusticate
by throwing around terms which you use incorrectly and arguments which
are so facile that a child of five can see through them?
RF
<snipped>
backspace
> On Sep 15, 8:48 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 10:50 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >>And as I
> > >>have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
> > >>forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
> > >>nature selection force?
> > >Yes I would. There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
> > >Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
> > >midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
> > >influences present in the environment.
>
> > If something is the result or the effect then something had to be
> > cause. Thus the "influences" were the cause and this cause must then
> > be the nature selection force. There is no such thing as a "Natural
> > Selection", there might be such a thing as a "Nature Selection Force".
> So there is no such thing as "gravity", only "gravity force".
Depends on your pragmatics with the word "gravity".
richardal...@googlemail.com
What utter bullshit!
You misuse the term "pragmatics" as if it was some magical key which
gives meanings to words.
It isn't.
The "pragmatics" come from education. You need to learn about the
subject, and that will provide you with the "pragmatics" whose lack
you boast about. Boasting about your ignorance of a subject is not a
strong argument.
John Harshman
> On Sep 14, 10:50 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>And as I
>>>have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
>>>forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
>>>nature selection force?
>
>
>>Yes I would. There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
>>Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
>>midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
>>influences present in the environment.
>
>
> If something is the result or the effect then something had to be
> cause. Thus the "influences" were the cause and this cause must then
> be the nature selection force.
Your syllogism here consists of nothing but non sequitur.
> There is no such thing as a "Natural
> Selection", there might be such a thing as a "Nature Selection Force".
> Using just "Natural Selection" is like imagine a person never speaks
> in full sentences but always leaves out the last word in some sort of
> asinine semantic game where he expects me to deduce his intent. It is
> not for me figure out your intent with your language, merely to point
> out that you are violating my rules of language: My intent with
> *Selection* means conscious selection, it is not the word that is
> important it is the intent that we convey with the word.
Here is a very important point: when you're trying to understand other
people, *your* intent doesn't count; *their* intent does. If you want to
know what I mean, what you would have meant by those words only gets in
the way. This is particularly true when what *you* mean goes against the
meaning attached by the entire scientific community starting with the
person (Darwin, in this case) who coined the term.
> Behe's
> definition of Irreducible Complexity is not the issue but his intent
> of Interdependence between abstract algorithms and mechanical parts.
I don't think you understand Behe either, but notice that it's Behe's
intent that matters, not your personal beliefs of what his words ought
to mean.
>>Calling it a force only obscures meaning, which is of course backspace's stock in trade.
>
> The concept of an abstract *selection force* doesn't obscure any
> meaning.
Yes it does. Nobody has any such concept except you.
> We can visualize or understand the intent a person conveys by
> explicitly stating that there is a nature selection force with a mind
> all of its own selecting for the control algorithms in a frog and
> eagle.
Only if that person did in fact intend such a thing, which nobody does.
> That is as long as he communicates his intent. In your usage of
> the word *selection* you leave out the word "force" and thus I can't
> deduce your intent without asking you. You answer that you have no
> conscious intent
No, I don't answer any such thing and never have.
> and then I point out that this means you are in some
> sort of intimate cartoonish universe of language relativism where you
> are inventing your own language reality, which is separate from my
> language reality making communication between us essentially
> impossible, since we communicate different pragmatics with the word
> "selection".
But you are the one inventing his own language reality. When I say
"natural selection" I mean the same thing by it as everyone else does,
except you.
Shall I point out once again that snipping out almost everything I say
without responding is rude and dishonest?
backspace
On Sep 15, 2:10 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > >>And as I
> > > > >>have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
> > > > >>forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
> > > > >>nature selection force?
> > > > >Yes I would. There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
> > > > >Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
> > > > >midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
> > > > >influences present in the environment.
>
> > > > If something is the result or the effect then something had to be
> > > > cause. Thus the "influences" were the cause and this cause must then
> > > > be the nature selection force. There is no such thing as a "Natural
> > > > Selection", there might be such a thing as a "Nature Selection Force".
> > > So there is no such thing as "gravity", only "gravity force".
>
> > Depends on your pragmatics with the word "gravity".
>
> gives meanings to words.
And you dear sir are denying that there is a structural ambiguity as
MIT linguistics department puts it with this word
*selection*. All communication is an attempt at conveying intent, go
look under the talk page of Wikipedia Natural Selection and you will
see how evolutionists amongst themselves filled probably over a 100
pages in verbal cat fights over this word *selection* because they all
failed to understand that Darwin managed to achieve what no other
person was seemingly capable doing: Making *selection* as a word we
have used to communicate the intent of conscious goal directed
*selection* not have such intent anymore.
This is the single reason why Europe is pagan and governed by fax
machine from Brussels and why we had two world wars. It is actually
terrifying what is going on around me. Everybody is now mentally ill.
Scordova, Ken Ham, Dembski, You, Harshman, Wilkins the entire Europe.
Its is heart braking to see those pathetic posters in the Red States
stating that Evolution is Godless, nobody seems to get it: Who's
version of Evolution with what intent?
Am I the only individual on this planet (well me and Dernavich at
least) see - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
who seems to understand that if you replace every occurrence of
"Natural Selection" and "Evolution" with "Ninja Turtles" and "Aztec
Cosmology" in YEC, Evolutionist and ID writings you will see just how
confused our language have become? Some YEC says that Natural
Selection is wrong, well is the "Ninja Turtles" wrong? That would
depend on your intent with the phrase "Ninja Turtles". All you really
can say about NS is that there is no such thing as a "Natural
Selection", there might be a "Nature Selection" though. I would urge
you to read Dernavich's article on NS - the man is a genius.
I think there might just be one more person who would get my point and
that is Berlinski. Yep, Berlinkski but he is paid by the Discovery
Institute and thus he has to keep this whole senseless debate alive,
knowing full well that all you have to understand is that *selection*
has now been made undefined by the materialists. Materialists have
hijacked our language. The moment you de-brainwash yourself by saying
over and over again: *Selection* implies *conscious* selection you
might just get back your sanity. So I think this makes it only three
individuals on this planet who understand that you never, never ever
use the word *selection* if you are not communicating the pragmatics
and aphobetics of conscious goal directed teleological selection.
We are dealing with the biggest form of cultural and language
intimidation. They will throw you out of University if you tell your
instructor that he can't use the word *selection*, so everybody is
forced to change their language and become mentally ill in the
process. For Christians the spiritual danger is severe - a Christian
using the phrase Natural Selection as though it actually means
something is really busy denying his faith. There is a deep spiritual
insight you have to grasp surround this whole issue. Our language was
given to us by the Lord Jesus 6000 years ago: He is language
personified in the flesh. When Paul says to guard your minds, he also
implies to not allow your language become confused. A dog wagging his
tail when he sees you with no intent of affection towards you is an
insane dog. A child who says:"..I love you daddy..." and actually has
the intent of hate with the word 'love' is a mentally ill child. And a
Christian that allows himself to be forced to partake in this language
madness instead of resisting it is really denying *Language* himself:
Jesus Christ. God did not tell Ham to build a "Dinosaur adventure
land", dinosaur lands won't solve the mental illness that has resulted
from making *selection* undefined.
Bob T.
Calling backspace an idiot is an insult to idiots.
- Bob T.
>
> Do you know what a Venn diagram is? ISTR them being done in grade 10
> math. Each circle indicates a set of items. If the circles overlap, then
> some items are in both sets.
>
> Finding a new term when reading, whether it's science, art, whatever, is
> like building up a a mental Venn diagram. So you read one author, and
> you see that to them <list-of-ideas> is part of <concept>, so that's
> your first circle. Read a second author, and to them <concept> has
> <second-list-of-ideas> and even though it's a different list many of its
> items are still the same and thus you make a second venn circle in your
> mind which overlaps the first and refines your knowledge of <concept>.
> Repeat each time you read a new author who discusses <concept>.
>
> You seem to be the only person on the planet who is incapable of
> building up such mental venn diagrams to help them understand a topic.
>
> In any case, to reinforce what I think of you:
>
> http://images2.jokaroo.net/flash/youareanidiot.swf
>
> Have a nice day. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob T.
Wow! Backspace, you are obviously mentally ill. I suggest you seek
help.
- Bob T.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sep 15, 2:10 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > >>And as I
> > > > > >>have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
> > > > > >>forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
> > > > > >>nature selection force?
> > > > > >Yes I would. There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
> > > > > >Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
> > > > > >midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
> > > > > >influences present in the environment.
>
> > > > > If something is the result or the effect then something had to be
> > > > > cause. Thus the "influences" were the cause and this cause must then
> > > > > be the nature selection force. There is no such thing as a "Natural
> > > > > Selection", there might be such a thing as a "Nature Selection Force".
> > > > So there is no such thing as "gravity", only "gravity force".
>
> > > Depends on your pragmatics with the word "gravity".
>
> > You misuse the term "pragmatics" as if it was some magical key which
> > gives meanings to words.
>
> And you dear sir are denying that there is a structural ambiguity as
> MIT linguistics department puts it with this word
> *selection*.
I'm doing no such thing.
I'm telling you that if you educate yourself in evolutionary biology
you will understand what is meant by the term "natural selection" in
that context, and thus avoid such ambigiuty.
> All communication is an attempt at conveying intent, go
> look under the talk page of Wikipedia Natural Selection and you will
> see how evolutionists amongst themselves filled probably over a 100
> pages in verbal cat fights over this word *selection* because they all
> failed to understand that Darwin managed to achieve what no other
> person was seemingly capable doing: Making *selection* as a word we
> have used to communicate the intent of conscious goal directed
> *selection* not have such intent anymore.
"Evolutionists" do not fight over the meaning of the term. The meaning
is clear from what Darwin wrote and from how the term has been used
subsequently by evolutionary biologists. Why not try to learn about it
rather than trying to impose meanings it has never had in biology?
>
> This is the single reason why Europe is pagan and governed by fax
> machine from Brussels and why we had two world wars.
Europe is not pagan. It is largely Christian. You are evidently as ill-
informed about European history and geography as you are about
everything else.
> It is actually
> terrifying what is going on around me.
Bearing in mind that what you perceive seems to be largely the content
of your own brain, perhaps it is. However, if you try to educate
yourself you may not find it as terrifying as you think.
> Everybody is now mentally ill.
As a rule of thumb, if someone declares everyone else to be mentally
ill, the chances are is that the person making such a declaration is
mentally ill. Just a thought.
> Scordova, Ken Ham, Dembski, You, Harshman, Wilkins the entire Europe.
> Its is heart braking to see those pathetic posters in the Red States
> stating that Evolution is Godless, nobody seems to get it: Who's
> version of Evolution with what intent?
The only people who are stating that evolution is Godless are
creationists. Evolutionary biologists are quite clear about what is
meant by evolution, as you would find out if you educated yourself in
the subject. Evidently you prefer your ignorance.
>
> Am I the only individual on this planet (well me and Dernavich at
> least) see -http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
> who seems to understand that if you replace every occurrence of
> "Natural Selection" and "Evolution" with "Ninja Turtles" and "Aztec
> Cosmology" in YEC, Evolutionist and ID writings you will see just how
> confused our language have become?
As the meaning of natural selection is clear to the biologists who
actually study it, why bother to replace the term with another? The
"pragmatics" of the term in the context of biology are perfectly
clear, as you will find if you educate yourself in the subject.
> Some YEC says that Natural
> Selection is wrong, well is the "Ninja Turtles" wrong? That would
> depend on your intent with the phrase "Ninja Turtles". All you really
> can say about NS is that there is no such thing as a "Natural
> Selection", there might be a "Nature Selection" though. I would urge
> you to read Dernavich's article on NS - the man is a genius.
I doubt that anyone would take your estimation of someone's genius as
of any value given your dogmatic refusal to learn.
> I think there might just be one more person who would get my point and
> that is Berlinski. Yep, Berlinkski but he is paid by the Discovery
> Institute and thus he has to keep this whole senseless debate alive,
> knowing full well that all you have to understand is that *selection*
> has now been made undefined by the materialists.
"Selection" as it is used in the term "natural selection" is clearly
defined and well-understood by evolutionary theorists and biologists,
as you would learn if you educate yourself in the subject.
Why not take up my offer of a recommended reading list?
> Materialists have
> hijacked our language. The moment you de-brainwash yourself by saying
> over and over again: *Selection* implies *conscious* selection you
> might just get back your sanity.
Why? In the term "natural selection" it doesn't. Any evolutionary
biologist can explain that to you.
> So I think this makes it only three
> individuals on this planet who understand that you never, never ever
> use the word *selection* if you are not communicating the pragmatics
> and aphobetics of conscious goal directed teleological selection.
What rubbish! Language is a tool for communication, and if the meaning
of the word "selection" in the term "natural selection" does not imply
the involvement of any consciousness, the meaning of the word
"selection" may have changed. That's what happens to words in
language.
> We are dealing with the biggest form of cultural and language
> intimidation. They will throw you out of University if you tell your
> instructor that he can't use the word *selection*, so everybody is
> forced to change their language and become mentally ill in the
> process.
We change the way in which we use language, and the meanings of words
in language all the time, and have done so throughout recorded
history. This has not resulted in widespread mental illness.
> For Christians the spiritual danger is severe - a Christian
> using the phrase Natural Selection as though it actually means
> something is really busy denying his faith.
More complete and utter bullshit. There are many Christians who
understand the meaning of the term perfectly well - and far better
than you do (which is not saying much) - who find no conflict between
accepting the findings of science in respect of evolutionary biology
and their faith.
What do you know that they don't?
> There is a deep spiritual
> insight you have to grasp surround this whole issue. Our language was
> given to us by the Lord Jesus 6000 years ago: He is language
> personified in the flesh.
As Jesus lived 2000 years ago and spoke Aramaic, this is patently
absurd.
> When Paul says to guard your minds, he also
> implies to not allow your language become confused. A dog wagging his
> tail when he sees you with no intent of affection towards you is an
> insane dog. A child who says:"..I love you daddy..." and actually has
> the intent of hate with the word 'love' is a mentally ill child. And a
> Christian that allows himself to be forced to partake in this language
> madness instead of resisting it is really denying *Language* himself:
> Jesus Christ. God did not tell Ham to build a "Dinosaur adventure
> land", dinosaur lands won't solve the mental illness that has resulted
> from making *selection* undefined.
I have no idea if you are serious in this rant, or are simply
trolling.
If you have any interest in correcting the absurd misunderstandings
you have about science in general and biological science in particular
I'll post a recommended reading list.
If all you can do is rant, I suggest that you address the issue of
your own mental health.
RF
backspace
> > > If you wish to see how destructive this phrase "natural selection" is
> > > in a peer reviewed article in biology replace it with "Ninja turtles"
> > > still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
> > > trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
> I think he knows he is making a fool of himself; but his religious
> need to try any tactic (foolish or not) at misrepresenting evolution
> and/or science trumps his rational abilities. This is a dominant
> characteristic of crationists here. Being a fool (or liar) for Christ
> is not a sin but a way of testifying.
I actually lifted a statement by Professor Philip S. Skell on
replacing evolution with "Aztec Cosmology".
You are basically calling Prof Skell a "fool" which a strong word to
use. Please read his paper on the link provided and motivate why you
say Professor Skell is not up to your standards of intellectual
rigueur .
Here is what he said: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisited/
"..In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs
as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the
term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find
out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word - "Buddhism,"
"Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the
substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me.
>From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear
that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the
availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an
immersion in historical biology...."
Arkalen
> On Sep 15, 3:31 am, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If you wish to see how destructive this phrase "natural selection" is
> > > > in a peer reviewed article in biology replace it with "Ninja turtles"
> > > > and evolution with "Aztec Cosmology". And then try and see if you are
> > > > still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
> > > > trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
> > I think he knows he is making a fool of himself; but his religious
> > need to try any tactic (foolish or not) at misrepresenting evolution
> > and/or science trumps his rational abilities. This is a dominant
> > characteristic of crationists here. Being a fool (or liar) for Christ
> > is not a sin but a way of testifying.
>
> I actually lifted a statement by Professor Philip S. Skell on
> replacing evolution with "Aztec Cosmology".
> You are basically calling Prof Skell a "fool" which a strong word to
> use. Please read his paper on the link provided and motivate why you
> say Professor Skell is not up to your standards of intellectual
> rigueur .
>
> "..In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs
> as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the
> term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find
> out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word - "Buddhism,"
> "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the
> substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me.
Intelligent Design ? (given where the link comes from...)
In any case his statement is a very easy one to make, I don't see why
we should take his word for it or trust his judgement of what
"touching the paper's core" is without seeing concrete examples of
what he's talking about.
>From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear
> that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the
> availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an
> immersion in historical biology...."
Hum... and this is different from any other science how exactly ?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sep 15, 3:31 am, RAM <RAMather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If you wish to see how destructive this phrase "natural selection" is
> > > > in a peer reviewed article in biology replace it with "Ninja turtles"
> > > > and evolution with "Aztec Cosmology". And then try and see if you are
> > > > still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
> > > > trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
> > I think he knows he is making a fool of himself; but his religious
> > need to try any tactic (foolish or not) at misrepresenting evolution
> > and/or science trumps his rational abilities. This is a dominant
> > characteristic of crationists here. Being a fool (or liar) for Christ
> > is not a sin but a way of testifying.
>
> I actually lifted a statement by Professor Philip S. Skell on
> replacing evolution with "Aztec Cosmology". You are basically calling Prof Skell a "fool" which a strong word to
> use.
Well, as Professor Skell is a chemist who has never carried out any
research or published any paper dealing with evolutionary biology, it
would seem that he is rather foolish to pontificate on matters outside
his areas of expertise.
> Please read his paper on the link provided and motivate why you
> say Professor Skell is not up to your standards of intellectual
> rigueur .
Let's have a go a this "paper" (it isn't, by the way: it's a blog, and
is unedited and has not been subject to peer-review)
"Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the
history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of
years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the
evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable
empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past."
FALSEHOOD #1
Darwin built his theory largely on his studies and observations of
existing living organisms, not the fossil record. This still remains
by far the most important evidence supporting evolutionary theory.
"For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors
to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since
then we have found many ancient fossilsŹ - even exquisitely preserved
soft-bodied creatures - but none are credible ancestors to the
Cambrian animals."
FALSEHOOD #2
There are forms from the Ediacran faunas which are just that, and
their existence has been reported for a decade or more.
"Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's
theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to
be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that
correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree
with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes
sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work
quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.
S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1
"Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at
the same time, a highly superfluous one."
MISREPRESENTATION #1
The next sentence reads as follows: "Yet, the marginality of
evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology,
from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of
ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A
spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If
we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to
understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie
them."
"I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics
during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by
Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of
bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70
eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if
they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the
same: No."
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION #1
Evidently A S Wilson disagrees.
"I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century:
the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the
ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug
reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the
development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists
working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have
most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to
antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's
theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after
the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION #2
"in the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as
a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology."
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION #3
"Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers?
To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word -
"Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the
substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me.
>From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear
that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the
availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an
immersion in historical biology."
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION #4
"When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously
challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with
quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent
paragraph:
Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and
more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to
the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting
evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies
to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters,
however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that,
ultimately, underlie them."
WOW! So now he quotes the passage which demonstrates that his previous
assertions were false!
"In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts
mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to
explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things
like human nature."
FALSEHOOD #3
If you read the passage, you will see quite clearly that they are not.
"Understanding the processes of evolution" is the key phrase. It is
not post hoc rationalisation as the author asserts.
"Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple:
Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive - except
when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection
produces virile men who eagerly spread their seedŹ - except when it
prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an
explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is
difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst
for scientific discovery."
FALSEHOOD #4
Evolutionary theory make very accurate predictions of aspects of
biological systems and populations. A good example was the prediction
of the social structure of mole rats from evolutionary theory.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=41102
"Darwinian evolutionŹ - whatever its other virtues - does not provide
a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."
FALSEHOOD #5.
As the example of the mole rats demonstrates, it does.
"This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic
framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural
chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new
molecules of practical benefit."
MISREPRESENTATION #2
The validity of a theory in science is not premiated on it's practical
benefit.
"None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs."
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION #5
...and one which is directly contradicted by the quotation from A S
Wilson he uses in this essay!
"Philip Skell responds: My essay about Darwinism and modern
experimental biology has stirred up a lively discussion, but the
responses still provide no evidence that evolutionary theory is the
cornerstone of experimental biology. Comparative physiology and
comparative genomics have certainly been fruitful, but comparative
biology originated before Darwin and owes nothing to his theory."
FALSE LOGIC #1
This is as stupid as asserting that because the movements of the
planets had been studied before Newton, his theory of gravity
contributes nothing to modern astronomy.
"Before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, comparative
biology focused mainly on morphology, because physiology and
biochemistry were in their infancy and genomics lay in the future; but
the extension of a comparative approach to these sub-disciplines
depended on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not
on evolutionary theory and immersion in historical biology."
FALSEHOOD #6
Any biologist will tell you that evolutionary theory transformed our
understanding of biology and provides the theoretical framework which
gives meaning to the patterns of character distribution found in
living organisms.
"One letter mentions directed molecular evolution as a technique to
discover antibodies, enzymes and drugs. Like comparative biology, this
has certainly been fruitful, but it is not an application of Darwinian
evolution - it is the modern molecular equivalent of classical
breeding."
FALSEHOOD #7
Just as modern artificial breeding owes much to a knowledge of
evolutionary theory. Note the bait and switch here, by the way: he has
changed the argument from one concerning evolutionary theory to
Darwinism. Modern evolutionary theory owes much to Darwin's theory of
natural selection, but it is the assimilation of the science of
genetics into evolutionary theory which gives it its predictive power.
"Long before Darwin, breeders used artificial selection to develop
improved strains of crops and livestock. Darwin extrapolated this in
an attempt to explain the origin of new species, but he did not invent
the process of artificial selection itself."
MISLEADING STATEMENT #1
Quite so. However, modern plant and animal breeders rely heavily on
evolutionary theory to design their experiments and proceedures.
"It is noteworthy that not one of these critics has detailed an
example where Darwin's Grand Paradigm Theory guided researchers to
their goals."
MISREPRESENTATION #3
Darwin never offered a "Grand Paradigm Theory", nor has any
evolutionary biologist ever referred to Darwin's theory as such.
"In fact, most innovations are not guided by grand paradigms, but by
far more modest, testable hypotheses."
Quite so.
"Recognizing this, neither medical schools nor pharmaceutical firms
maintain divisions of evolutionary science."
MISLEADING STATEMENT #2
Universities don't maintain schools of gravitational science. This
does not mean that they don't teach gravitational theory.
"The fabulous advances in experimental biology over the past century
have had a core dependence on the development of new methodologies and
instruments, not by intensive immersion in historical biology and
Darwin's theory, which attempted to historicize the meager
documentation."
MISLEADING STATEMENT #3
Quite so. But then modern evolutionary theory is not equivatent to
Darwin's theory.
"Evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms."
A STATEMENT SO MISLEADING AS TO BE AN OUTRIGHT FALSEHOHOOD
No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that it is. It's an
observable process affecting populations of living organisms.
"What modern experimental biologists study are the mechanisms by
which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving."
STRAW MAN
Modern biologists study the mechanisms whereby populations of living
organisms evolve.
"Organisms oscillate about a median state; and if they deviate
significantly from that state, they die."
If this refers to studies in evolutionary theory, this is an outright
and blatant falsehood. Evolutionary theory does not apply to
individual organisms, but to populations of organisms.
"It has been research on these mechanisms of stability, not research
guided by Darwin's theory, which has produced the major fruits of
modern biology and medicine."
FALSEHOOD #8
Research into the medabolic systems which maintain the stablity of
individuals may have yielded research benefits, but that is not an
issue addressed by evolutionary theory. Research based on evolutionary
theory - which includes genetics, of course, has been very fruitful.
"And so I ask again: Why do we invoke Darwin?"
The simple answer is that we don't. Evolutionary scientists don't.
Science has moved on since Darwin's time, and although his
contribution was important, it is by not modern evolutionary theory.
RF
>
> Here is what he said:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisi...
backspace
> > Here is what he said:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisi...
> > "..In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs
> > as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the
> > term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find
> > out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word - "Buddhism,"
> > "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the
> > substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me.
>
> Your link doesn't work. Is this Philip Skell person a proponent of
I think Dembski site just got slashdotted after I posted the link,
here is the Google cache:
UC
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a term 'selection pressure'. Maybe that's what he meant.
Arkalen
> On Sep 15, 7:23 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here is what he said:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisi...
> > > "..In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs
> > > as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the
> > > term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find
> > > out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word - "Buddhism,"
> > > "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the
> > > substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me.
>
> > Your link doesn't work. Is this Philip Skell person a proponent of
>
> I think Dembski site just got slashdotted after I posted the link,
> here is the Google cache:
>
Huh. Well, not being a biologist I can't really judge what he's saying
though some bits give me pause. Like talking about "experimental
biology". What is "experimental biology", and does it exclude
evolutionary biology ? Because that's a field that certainly uses the
theory of evolution all the time.
Also the last paragraph sounds fishy to me. Oh, and he hasn't given
any examples of papers where he replaced "evolution" with "Aztec
Cosmology".
For the rest I can't tell if he's wrong, right or rightish but
irrelevant (for instance if what he's saying is the equivalent of
saying biochemists don't invoke quantum physics, well d'oh. Just
because something is basic to your field doesn't mean it's useful to
talk about it in the paper you're writing right now.). So I'll let
others address it.
backspace
> > get semantics right.
> It's more than just semantics. Thinking of natural selection as a
> mechanical force or power gets you into all kinds of confusions.
It sure does, because the *selection* is the word we use to
communicate our intent of consciousness. And if you don't have a
conscious intent they you must invent a new phrase and not hijack the
word selection.
> NS is an explanatory schema - when you have physical forces and causal
> processes that apply in such and such a manner, then you get a
> population under NS. When you don't, the result is drift (for that
> trait).
There was no link either before 1859 or when drift was discovered in
genes between the word "drift" and "selection".
> NS is sometimes called a "mechanism", but it isn't an entity in its own
> right - it's a dynamic of populations.
Dynamic of populations? Intent, intent what is your intent with
"dynamic of populations". Again there was no casual relationship
before 1859 between *selection*, *dynamic*, *drift* or *populations*.
And the same with Artificial Selection, before 1859 nothing got
artificialed in relation with a *selection*. Only Darwin coined it in
1859. Before 1859 people have been breeding animals blissfully unaware
that they were "artificialing" cows and were themselves "feeble" in
relation to the cows power of selection. Look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection on Origin Species
and tell me what was Darwin's intent with "feeble". You will note
that the quote is not even listed on Wikipedia. Which is probably why
Wikipedia states on the top that it doesn't reference its sources. Why
are the evolutionists not citing the passage in Origin Species dealing
with Artificial selection?
It will come as a shock to most people that Darwin thought mans power
of "feeble" selection is less developed than a cows power of
selection. He of course didn't say "cow" but nature, but a cow is part
of nature unless Darwin had some other intent? As I have pointed out
elsewhere one can't separate *Natural Selection" form "Survival of the
Fittest" and "Artificial Selection" since Darwin used all three these
phrases to communicate some sort of intent.
Darwin
"...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...."
wf3h
> >
> There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
> abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
> the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
> where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
> hypothesis explains anything.
i'll type this slowly so you can understand:
the origin of life has nothing to do with the evolution of life.
that's been explained many times before...but you're incapable of
learning
The mechanism that is responsible for
> life would logically be responsible for the common descent of life as
> well.
and you yourself have just split out the 2 different ideas. it's
ironic that you, in your hatred of science, trying to use language to
destroy it, have fallen into a trap of your own making
the mechanism is quite separate from the origin of life.
Lets say this common ancestor that we all finally agree was
> chimp that showed it's willy for all the monkey babes
> transmutated(Darwin's words) or morphed or whatever into a human. In
> what way would this prove or disprove the existence of God
who said it had anything at all to say about god? talk about a non
sequitur. why not have evolution talk about ballet dancin?
, since we
> don't know what was the mechanism? The mechanism is the issue and as
> Berlinski said:"...Natural selection as some sort of universal
> mechanism is just as implausible as a universal differential equation
> explaining all of physics..."
another non sequitur.
>
> If you wish to see how destructive this phrase "natural selection" is
> in a peer reviewed article in biology replace it with "Ninja turtles"
> and evolution with "Astec Cosmology". And then try and see if you are
> still able to grasp the mechanistic description of what the author was
> trying to describe before he started "naturaling" all over the
> article.
natural selection is a testable. god and ninja turtles have exactly
the same reality.
none.
John Wilkins
> > I'm surprised, I thought I'd heard expressions like "selection force"
> > or "selective forces" or something used... To me it wasn't confusing
> > because I think of a force as something that causes other things to
> > change, which the environment and the selection it operates does to
> > populations. Like you could say that the default evolution for a
> > character is drift, but under "environmental forcing" i.e. selection
> > you get something different...
> >
> > Which is what I meant when I said "semantics", i.e. "we seem to have
> > different conceptions of the same word which is what caused this
> > disagreement". I can see why you prefer not to use the phrase though.
> > I don't really agree with your reasons as far as my own personal use
> > goes but you're right that when talking to people who know nothing of
> > science, physics or evolution it's not a good expression to use.
>
> There is a term 'selection pressure'. Maybe that's what he meant.
People do talk about slective pressure/s, and/or force/s. But this is
about what it means to give an account of a selective event or sweep in
physical terms. A virus and a horse can have the "same" fitness, and yet
the underlying physical states are very different. What makes the virus
of fitness N is, say, the structure of its protein coat allowing it to
infect a host cell. What makes the horse of fitness N is, say, the
ability to graze silaceous grasses due to its tooth and jaw structure.
There is no physical mechanism that they share, and yet they have the
same role in a selection scheme.
This is why I say that selection is not a physical mechanism.
backspace
> On Sep 13, 1:23 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
> > abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
> > the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
> > where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
> > hypothesis explains anything.
> the origin of life has nothing to do with the evolution of life.
And until you tell me who established this your are not even wrong. By
who's decree was it decided that we
only start the discussion from the first living cell? What came before
the cell - a molten earth that cooled down and
formed rocks. In other words we came from a rock? And because
evolutionists want to look intellectually respectable they invented a
"common ancestor" to obfuscate their intent that they believe a chimp
that showed its willy for the monkey babes morphed into a human and by
pure argument from authority they have decided that what came before
the first living cell is verboten because then people will realize
that what they are actually saying is that we came from a rock.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> This is why I say that selection is not a physical mechanism.
But consciousness is?
John Wilkins
backspace
> Because that's a field that certainly uses the theory of evolution all the time.
Theory of Evolution redirects to "Evolution" on Wikipedia. Do know why
there is no page for ToE on Wikipedia? Because there is no ToE. Yes,
I am serious there is no theory. Some say "...Evolution is the change
in Allele frequencies.." Change in allele frequencies is the
observation - not a theory. A theory must explain how the palindromic
sequences found in all genetic codes of all creatures arose
independently from the first living cell. Lest apply Prof.Skell "Aztec
Cosmology test in my opening quote: ".... Aztec cosmology is the
change in allele frequencies....". We still get the substance of the
quote - change in allele frequencies.
Darwin used the phrase ToE once and Theory of gradual Evolution once -
yet he never actually gave any theory. There is difference between
using the word couplet theory-of-evolution and an actual theory. And
notice the difference in pragmatics between Gould and Darwin: Darwin
had a gradual intent reflecting his philosophy but Gould had a sudden
changes or disruptive intent, reflecting his aphobetics. The deception
is that they both used the same phrase. So again I ask: Show me on
Wikipedia where is the theory that derives from first principles how
an eagle obtained the *Interdependent* control algorithms that enables
it to catch a bird in mid-air.
The patriot missile system fires a missile to shoot down another
missile. The control algorithms are Irreducibly Interdependently
Complex - just ask Scordova. By analogy the eagle intercepts a bird
and dive bombs from a hight catching it in mid air. The eagle actuates
via some PID control loop its muscles to intercept the bird at a
certain angle and speed. The control loop for this is Irreducibly
Interdependently Complex. Or if you wish the algorithms, muscles and
nerve signals are *Interdependent*. It's the *Interdependent* part and
Behe's intent with it that matters. Don't get stuck on the
definitions, try and understand the intent behind the definitions
which allows us to modify Behe's original definition and thus
generalizing his pragmatics.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sep 15, 10:41 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Because that's a field that certainly uses the theory of evolution all the time.
>
> Theory of Evolution redirects to "Evolution" on Wikipedia. Do know why
> there is no page for ToE on Wikipedia?
Because nobody has written one.
> Because there is no ToE.
...unless, of course, wikipedia is not the ultimate authority on the
sum of human knowledge.
> Yes,
> I am serious there is no theory.
Well, evolutionary biologists and theorists disagree with you.
What do you know that they don't?
> Some say "...Evolution is the change
> in Allele frequencies.." Change in allele frequencies is the
> observation - not a theory.
Nobody says change in allele frequencies is a theory. Once again your
lack of basic knowledge of the subject is showing.
> A theory must explain how the palindromic
> sequences found in all genetic codes of all creatures arose
> independently from the first living cell.
Why?
> Lest apply Prof.Skell "Aztec
> Cosmology test in my opening quote: ".... Aztec cosmology is the
> change in allele frequencies....". We still get the substance of the
> quote - change in allele frequencies.
I've demolished this rather dishonest essay on another part of this
thread, so I suggest that you find some other source to support your
assertions.
>
> Darwin used the phrase ToE once and Theory of gradual Evolution once -
> yet he never actually gave any theory.
Yes he did. He provided a theory of evolution by natural selection. It
forms a significant part of modern evolutionary theory. You should
learn about it.
> There is difference between
> using the word couplet theory-of-evolution and an actual theory. And
> notice the difference in pragmatics between Gould and Darwin: Darwin
> had a gradual intent reflecting his philosophy but Gould had a sudden
> changes or disruptive intent, reflecting his aphobetics.
So you don't understand Gould either. I suggest that you read Gould's
work yourself rather than relying of misreporting of his "pragmatics"
from secondary sources.
> The deception
> is that they both used the same phrase. So again I ask: Show me on
> Wikipedia where is the theory that derives from first principles how
> an eagle obtained the *Interdependent* control algorithms that enables
> it to catch a bird in mid-air.
Why?
>
> The patriot missile system fires a missile to shoot down another
> missile. The control algorithms are Irreducibly Interdependently
> Complex - just ask Scordova.
Irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary theory 80 years
ago. What's the problem?
> By analogy the eagle intercepts a bird
> and dive bombs from a hight catching it in mid air. The eagle actuates
> via some PID control loop its muscles to intercept the bird at a
> certain angle and speed. The control loop for this is Irreducibly
> Interdependently Complex. Or if you wish the algorithms, muscles and
> nerve signals are *Interdependent*. It's the *Interdependent* part and
> Behe's intent with it that matters. Don't get stuck on the
> definitions, try and understand the intent behind the definitions
> which allows us to modify Behe's original definition and thus
> generalizing his pragmatics.
Why not educate yourself in the subject rather than throwing around
words whose meaning you don't understand?
RF
backspace
> > Darwin used the phrase ToE once and Theory of gradual Evolution once -
> > yet he never actually gave any theory.
> Yes he did. He provided a theory of evolution by natural selection. It
> forms a significant part of modern evolutionary theory. You should
> learn about it.
And if you would only quote me the theory in his book which you can
download at http://www.gutenberg.org! Is it really this complicated?
We are forever told about the the ToE and ToNS but nobody ever gives
us the theory.
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are
told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
p.2
> Irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary theory 80 years
> ago. What's the problem?
Who's is this person and where did he formulate this theory?
Arkalen
> On Sep 16, 10:36 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > Darwin used the phrase ToE once and Theory of gradual Evolution once -
> > > yet he never actually gave any theory.
> > Yes he did. He provided a theory of evolution by natural selection. It
> > forms a significant part of modern evolutionary theory. You should
> > learn about it.
>
> And if you would only quote me the theory in his book which you can
> We are forever told about the the ToE and ToNS but nobody ever gives
> us the theory.
Moron.
<snip>
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sep 16, 10:36 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > Darwin used the phrase ToE once and Theory of gradual Evolution once -
> > > yet he never actually gave any theory.
> > Yes he did. He provided a theory of evolution by natural selection. It
> > forms a significant part of modern evolutionary theory. You should
> > learn about it.
>
> And if you would only quote me the theory in his book which you can
Read the book. It sets out the theory clearly, and provides both
evidence which supports it and posits evidence which could falsify it.
Why do you find the idea of reading a book so threatening?
> We are forever told about the the ToE and ToNS but nobody ever gives
> us the theory.
I've told you where you find the theory of evolution by natural
selection. It's in the book whose title is "Orgin of Species", first
published in 1859, and revised several times by it's author Charles
Darwin as more evidence became available and to address criticisms of
his theory.
Why not read the book?
> "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
> we are never told who has established it, and by what means.
You have been pointed numerous times at links which tell you exactly
what evolution means in the context of biology.
Stop lying.
> We are
> told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
> that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
> well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
> but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
> precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
> and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
> Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
> p.2
What the hell have the teachings of Teilhard the Chardin to do with
modern evolutionary biology? Teilhard's work was interesting in its
time, but has been largely rejected both by scientists and religious
people.
>
> > Irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary theory 80 years
> > ago. What's the problem?
>
> Who's is this person and where did he formulate this theory?
Irreducible complexity is not a theory. Its a property of some
systems.
Oh, and "evolutionary theory" is not a person. It's a theory, in the
same way as gravitational theory is a theory.
"Herman Muller, in 1918, indicated that an expected result of
evolutionary processes was the development of what he called
"interlocking complexity". Muller was one of the great geneticists of
the twentieth century. He went on to win a Nobel in 1946 for work in
mutations.
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/1946.html>
Muller's definition of "interlocking complexity" is exactly the same
as the definition of "irreducible complexity" -- a system of mutually
independent parts that requires all those parts to be present for the
system to work. However, Muller's claim is that this is an EXPECTED
result of evolution. Behe took the same definition, and claimed it was
IMPOSSIBLE as a result of evolution.
The reason for the difference is basically that Muller was using
evolution; and Behe was using a weird strawman of his own devising.
Behe describes evolution as working by the gradual addition of parts,
one by one. Muller, however, describes evolution as working by gradual
modifications of parts. Muller's description is the more accurate. New
proteins don't get added to systems particularly often; the vast
majority of evolution is small modifications to proteins, to alter
their amino acid sequence and hence their chemistry. Behe neglects
this entirely; and hence omits the vast majority of evolutionary
change."
Extract from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html
Please note that because Muller did what any competent scientists
does, which is to define what he means by the terms he uses (i.e. he
provides the "pragmatics") we can see that what he calls "interlocking
complexity" is exactly the same as "irreducible complexity"
Why not educate yourself in the subject?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
I think that when Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story called "Welcome to
the Monkey House" he was remarkably perceptive.
Get an education.
RF
Arkalen
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 1:23 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
> > > abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
> > > the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
> > > where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
> > > hypothesis explains anything.
> > the origin of life has nothing to do with the evolution of life.
>
> And until you tell me who established this your are not even wrong.
Species" and not "the Origin of Life", but really it's obvious. I'm
not surprised you don't understand it. By the way, how's that three-
body problem going ?
> By
> who's decree was it decided that we
> only start the discussion from the first living cell? What came before
> the cell - a molten earth that cooled down and
> formed rocks. In other words we came from a rock?
That's a question for the abiogenesis researchers, not evolution. The
same way the structure of the cell is the work of biochemists and
microbiologists, not evolutionary researchers. See how it works ? No,
of course you don't.
> And because
> evolutionists want to look intellectually respectable they invented a
> "common ancestor" to obfuscate their intent that they believe a chimp
> that showed its willy for the monkey babes morphed into a human
That's a new one to me. Amusingly, it would imply that those chimps
that didn't morph into humans don't show their willies for monkey
babes. Ever heard of bonobo chimps ?
> and by
> pure argument from authority they have decided that what came before
> the first living cell is verboten because then people will realize
> that what they are actually saying is that we came from a rock.
What came before the first cell is not verboten at all, it's just not
evolution. It's abiogenesis. Idiot.
Oh, and evolutionists don't say people came from a rock, creationists
do. Well, powdered rock at least.