http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success
backspace
next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
Greg G.
Every member of a generation that reproduces is self-evident proof
that every single one of their ancestors had reproductive success.
--
Greg G.
Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot little puppies.
--Gene Hill
SJAB1958
Your answer lies in the rest of that incredibly brief article, perhaps
you should go back and read it.
richardal...@googlemail.com
By applying statistical tests which determine how many of the genes
are passed on to subsequent generation.
So basically, by counting.
Just as we measure a distance by measuring.
Is there anything about the notion of measuring something which you
find complicated?
RF
backspace
So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
it wasn't a success?
Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics. That
sentence didn't write itself there on wikipedia and something doesn't
define itself a human had to define it. Without telling me who is this
person that actually defined it and what did he mean by reproductive
success the statement has no pragmatics and until this person tells us
what was his intent it is not even wrong.
Ernest Major
G. <ggw...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jun 14, 3:05 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
>> next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>>
>> Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
>> manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
>> genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>
>Every member of a generation that reproduces is self-evident proof
>that every single one of their ancestors had reproductive success.
Quite possibly you didn't answer his question. Whatever he meant to ask
- he doesn't exactly have a record for lucidity - his question can
reasonably be interpreted as requesting a means by which a numeric value
can be placed on reproductive success. Why he would need to ask a
question with such a self-evident answer is another matter.
--
Alias Ernest Major
rappoccio
Aww... that's kind of cute that you're using words used against
creationists back toward scientists. Kind of like watching a five-year-
old swear... you're kind of amused and horrified at the same time.
Your morbid fascination with asinine word games aside, reproductive
success is a measure of the number of "non-sterile" descendents from a
given organism. It's a way to count the reproductive viability of a
given organism. You could just call it "total number of non-sterile
children for all time".
So basically your word games would be like "What does 'measure
distance' mean? Can you 'measure distance' without measuring distance?
It's not even wrong." Completely self-evident, you're just not quite
understanding what it actually is. It's just a measure of the total
number of non-sterile descendents an organism has.
Cheezits
> On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 3:05 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto
>> > the next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes
>> > on."
>>
>> > Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such
>> > a manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
>> > genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>>
>> Every member of a generation that reproduces is self-evident proof
>> that every single one of their ancestors had reproductive success.
>
> it wasn't a success?
Yes.
> ... it is not even wrong.
No shit it isn't wrong. That's because it's right.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Kermit
> On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 3:05 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
> > > next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>
> > > Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
> > > manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
> > > genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>
> > Every member of a generation that reproduces is self-evident proof
> > that every single one of their ancestors had reproductive success.
> > --
> > Greg G.
>
> > Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot little puppies.
> > --Gene Hill
>
> So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
> it wasn't a success?
Correct. And those individuals which reproduce more are more
successful. See how that works?
> Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
> only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics. That
> sentence didn't write itself there on wikipedia and something doesn't
> define itself a human had to define it. Without telling me who is this
> person that actually defined it and what did he mean by reproductive
> success the statement has no pragmatics and until this person tells us
> what was his intent it is not even wrong.
Please establish who first defined "Semantics", "Syntax", and
"Grammar", before you presume to use those words.
Kermit
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 3:05 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
> > > next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>
> > > Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
> > > manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
> > > genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>
> > Every member of a generation that reproduces is self-evident proof
> > that every single one of their ancestors had reproductive success.
> > --
> > Greg G.
>
> > Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot little puppies.
> > --Gene Hill
>
> So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
> it wasn't a success?
Well, yes. What is so hard to understand about that?
> Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
> only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics.
I understand what is means. Why are you boasting about your inability
to comprehend?
> That
> sentence didn't write itself there on wikipedia and something doesn't
> define itself a human had to define it. Without telling me who is this
> person that actually defined it and what did he mean by reproductive
> success the statement has no pragmatics and until this person tells us
> what was his intent it is not even wrong.
You could apply that same "logic" to every article ever written. Such
a dogmatic determination never to understand anything at all makes you
look very stupid.
Why do you persist in doing so?
Do you honestly think that you are doing anything other than making
yourself look dogmatically ignorant?
RF
Greg G.
> On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 3:05 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
> > > next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>
> > > Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
> > > manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
> > > genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>
> > Every member of a generation that reproduces is self-evident proof
> > that every single one of their ancestors had reproductive success.
> > --
> > Greg G.
>
> > Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot little puppies.
> > --Gene Hill
>
> So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
> it wasn't a success?
Yes, it is as simple as that.
> Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
> only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics. That
> sentence didn't write itself there on wikipedia and something doesn't
> define itself a human had to define it. Without telling me who is this
> person that actually defined it and what did he mean by reproductive
> success the statement has no pragmatics and until this person tells us
> what was his intent it is not even wrong.
We don't know whether Grog or Ok first realized that 2 + 2 = 4, but it
is still a fact. We can determine it for ourselves. You seem to be
going to ludicrous extremes to find an excuse to deny what you know is
obviously true. Just choose between truth and fantasy.
--
Greg G.
Lack of money is no obstacle. Lack of an idea is an obstacle.
--Ken Hakuta
Desertphile
Children, stupid.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mark VandeWettering
Uh. Chances are if you parents didn't have any children, you won't
either.
Mark
Dick C
>
> So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
> it wasn't a success?
Yep, just like saying that if a particular car wins the Indy 500 it was
a success, while the cars that did not win were not successful.
Do you have a problem with that?
> Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
> only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics. That
> sentence didn't write itself there on wikipedia and something doesn't
> define itself a human had to define it. Without telling me who is this
> person that actually defined it and what did he mean by reproductive
> success the statement has no pragmatics and until this person tells us
> what was his intent it is not even wrong.
>
this is just another example of how sad and silly your entire arguement
is. If you cannot see some Very Official Page of Definitions by Important
People then the arguement fails. You have no arguement, and place to stand.
All you have is semantics, and a very poor quality case of semantics at
that.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Jon Fleming
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer controlled laser reproductometer.
--
Jon Fleming
Replabe nospam with group to email
Inez
If you have to ask, you're not having any.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 14, 9:15 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 3:05 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
>> > next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>>
>> > Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
>> > manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
>> > genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>>
>> Every member of a generation that reproduces is self-evident proof
>> that every single one of their ancestors had reproductive success.
>> --
>> Greg G.
>>
>> Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot little puppies.
>> --Gene Hill
>
>
>So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
>it wasn't a success?
>Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
>only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics.
what the hell is 'pragmatics'?
and is he suggesting that, for example, the development of bacterial
resistance is NOT a 'success'?
backspace
> > So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
> > it wasn't a success?
> > Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
> > only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics. That
> > sentence didn't write itself there on wikipedia and something doesn't
> > define itself a human had to define it. Without telling me who is this
> > person that actually defined it and what did he mean by reproductive
> > success the statement has no pragmatics and until this person tells us
> > what was his intent it is not even wrong.
> Aww... that's kind of cute that you're using words used against
> creationists back toward scientists. Kind of like watching a five-year-
> old swear... you're kind of amused and horrified at the same time.
> Your morbid fascination with asinine word games aside, reproductive
> success is a measure of the number of "non-sterile" descendents from a
> given organism.
Sure, but other than noteing the number of "non-sterile" descendents
how was the success of the organism determined?
> So basically your word games would be like "What does 'measure
> distance' mean?
The sentence has syntax,semantics,grammar and pragmatics, if only all
evolutionists will write like this ....sigh....
> It's just a measure of the total
> number of non-sterile descendents an organism has.
And the total number or descendents(non-sterile) was never predicted
but was discovered. If I discover five lion cubs instead of one I have
made a discovery not formulated a theory as to why there are five.
What is your theory as to why there are non-sterile descendents other
than telling me they were a "success"?
backspace
> Quite possibly you didn't answer his question. Whatever he meant to ask
> - he doesn't exactly have a record for lucidity - his question can
> reasonably be interpreted as requesting a means by which a numeric value
> can be placed on reproductive success. Why he would need to ask a
> question with such a self-evident answer is another matter.
No, I am asking wikipedia to tell me who defined "reproducitve
success" in such a manner. Defenitions don't define themselves, is
something is "defined" then somebody had to define it. If Wikipedia or
Gould who used the same phrase can't tell me their then their
sentences using the phrase has only 3 of the 4 ingrediants needed to
make a meaningful sentence: Semantics, grammar and Syntax. The last
one Pragmatics or intent is missing. I don't know what was the intent
of the Wikipedia ".... is defined as...." Defined as by whom? Until
this person is actually asked "reproductive success" is not even
wrong.
gregwrld
You're silly. The TOE is testable whether you know who first
formulated it or not.
Is this really the best you got? It's pretty pathetic.
gregwrld
backspace
published.
> whether you know who first formulated it or not.
Anybody can make up the phrase TOE. If you can't tell me who
formulated it and what was his intent or pragmatics then your
statement "The TOE is testable" is not even wrong.
I presume you know that Darwin used the phrase Theory of Evolution
only once:'
Quoting Darwin:
"...If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life at once, the
fact would be fatal to The Theory of Evolution through natural
selection. "
But he never told us what was the Theory of Evolution, his sentence
has no pragmatics or intent. And until we find out what he meant by
that or what exactly was TOE he wasn't even wrong. He used "Theory of
Natural Selection"
36 times though. But Darwin never told us what is the difference
between his phrase "Theory of Natural Selection" and "Natural
Selection" and therefore all these sentences of Darwin had no
pragmatics, only semantics, grammar and syntax. And until we ask
Darwin what he meant by these phrases he wasn't even wrong. His entire
book is an exercise in writing sentences without pragmatics which is
why Dr.Morris, Ken Ham, Dawkins and Miller have become mentally ill
in a sense.
Ron O
> On Jun 15, 11:34 am, gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
What is the theory of gravity and who thought it up? You have to be
careful to tell us which theory that you are talking about and when in
time.
The theory of biological evolution can be stated as simply as change
in allele frequency over time. I don't know who came up with that,
but it would have to be after the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics
and the standardization of the definition of allele.
You can state the theory of gravity as bodies of mass attract.
Both simplistic descriptions have a lot of scientific baggage and
discoveries heaped onto them over time and you can go on and on about
them, and get down into minute specifics. The bulk of any scientific
theory is the explanation of such simplistic descriptions.
You have the theory of evolution by natural selection. You can state
this as simply as claiming that a portion of the change in allele
frequences that we see over time can be accounted for by natural
selection for or against certain alleles segregating in a population.
Descriptions can be as dense and complex as you want them to be and it
doesn't matter who thought them up or when, just how they are
interpreted today.
Ron Okimoto
backspace
> The theory of biological evolution can be stated as simply as change
> in allele frequency over time. I don't know who came up with that,
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Every single scientific theory has an author except the "Theory of
Evolution". As stated Darwin used the phrase
"theory of evolution" only once, yet he never told us what is the TOE.
So again I ask why do you say that the observation of "allele
frequency changes" is a theory? You have just restated your
observation but this is independant of any theory as to why the
alleles change.
> You have the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Who's theory of evolution? Where is the theory do you mean the phrase
"theory of evolution" as used by Darwin or are you refering to
somebody else? Would you point me to a ULR that explains the theory of
evolution.
Cheezits
[babble deleted]
> His entire
> book is an exercise in writing sentences without pragmatics which is
> why Dr.Morris, Ken Ham, Dawkins and Miller have become mentally ill
> in a sense.
That what happened to you?
ric...@cbrp.co.uk
> On Jun 15, 1:12 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> The theory of biological evolution can be stated as simply as change
> > in allele frequency over time. I don't know who came up with that,
>
> Exactly but we know who came up with "Newton's theory of gravitation"
> fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
The way that theory is expressed in wikipedia is not the way that
Newton expressed it, and differs from Newton's original formulation in
several ways. Specifically, Newton believed that he was uncovering the
immutable laws of nature, whereas we now understand that any
scientific explanation is provisional, and subject to change if that
is what the evidence demands.
> Every single scientific theory has an author except the "Theory of
> Evolution".
Complete and utter nonsense. Theories in science are usually based on
the work of numerous contributors, and are generally the synthesis of
many thoroughly tested hypotheses. There is no single author for any
theory in science, and all theories in science change over time as
more evidence is acquired.
> As stated Darwin used the phrase
> "theory of evolution" only once, yet he never told us what is the TOE.
> So again I ask why do you say that the observation of "allele
> frequency changes" is a theory?
He didn't. He said that it is a description of evolution.
> You have just restated your
> observation but this is independant of any theory as to why the
> alleles change.
Theories are developed to explain observations such as the fact that
allele frequencies in populations change over time. If you are going
to criticise science, please learn the difference between observation
and theory.
>
> > You have the theory of evolution by natural selection.
>
> Who's theory of evolution?
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. What is so hard to
understand?
> Where is the theory do you mean the phrase
> "theory of evolution" as used by Darwin or are you refering to
> somebody else? Would you point me to a ULR that explains the theory of
> evolution.
The wikipedia entry is pretty good. Why not read it, try to understand
it, and if you can't from the web page read a few books on the
subject. I can recommend Steve Jones' book "Almost Like a Whale". If
you find that interesting, there are University courses which you can
take from which you can learn more, or if you can't afford that, many
other excellent books on the subject.
Education provides you with the "pragmatics" which allow you to
understand the meaning of concepts with which you evidently struggle.
Why not invest your time in learning rather than making facile
semantic arguments which do little except demonstrate that you refuse
dogmatically to learn anything?
RF
backspace
frequencies change without telling me it changes. I know it changes,
but that is what you must explain to me: Why do they change? The moons
orbit around the earth changes inventing a phrase: Theory of moon
orbit is the change in the moon's orbit contains the word theory but
is not a theory.
> Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. What is so hard to
> understand?
I don't what I am supposed to understand since your sentence has no
pragmatics. What naturaled and who did the selecting? You will tell me
nobody did the selecting, but then why are you using the word
"selection" then? What do you mean what is your intent or pragmatics.
Your statement as it stands only has grammar, semantics and syntax.
It has no pragmatics and until you tell me your intent it is not even
wrong.
Cheezits
[babble babble babble]
> What naturaled and who did the selecting?
There is no such word as "naturaled".
Until you post a response I think it is safe to assume that you are a
bot. :-D
Phil.the.Pape...@gmail.com
> I don't what I am supposed to understand since your sentence has no
> pragmatics. What naturaled and who did the selecting? You will tell me
> nobody did the selecting, but then why are you using the word
> "selection" then? What do you mean what is your intent or pragmatics.
> Your statement as it stands only has grammar, semantics and syntax.
> It has no pragmatics and until you tell me your intent it is not even
> wrong.
"No pragmatics? You can't handle the pragmatics!"
from the movie A Few Good Evolutionists
backspace
Did you invent that statement yourself. Can you motivate it with a few
examples.
> and all theories in science change over time as more evidence is acquired.
Give me a few examples. Motivate what you say don't just make
statements.
Phil.the.Pape...@gmail.com
"Motivate what you say"? You are getting less and less coherent,
which I would have thought to be impossible.
Rolf
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181847911.9...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
> next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>
> Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
> manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
> genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>
I may be wrong, but I have this nagging sensation that backspace are pulling
at legs as best he can all the time? I don't know if I have got your use of
the word 'troll' right, but doesn't it look like he is doing some trolling
as well? Is there a gotcha! around the corner?
rappoccio
>
> Other than Kepler who formulated Kepler's laws of planetary motion?
Kepler, and then Newton generalized them, and Einstein generalized
them yet again.
Three authors for the current state of "gravity". Done.
> Did you invent that statement yourself. Can you motivate it with a few
> examples.
>
> > and all theories in science change over time as more evidence is acquired.
>
> Give me a few examples. Motivate what you say don't just make
> statements.
First it was terrestrial gravity (F = mg). Then it was shown that
celestial gravity was the same thing (1/r^2 force law). Then it was
shown that relativistically gravity is the bending of space-time.
More evidence = things change.
rappoccio
> On Jun 14, 9:53 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So in other word if it reproduced it was a "success" and if it didn't
> > > it wasn't a success?
> > > Furthermore since the article doesn't state who defined it as such it
> > > only contains semantics,syntax and grammar but no pragmatics. That
> > > sentence didn't write itself there on wikipedia and something doesn't
> > > define itself a human had to define it. Without telling me who is this
> > > person that actually defined it and what did he mean by reproductive
> > > success the statement has no pragmatics and until this person tells us
> > > what was his intent it is not even wrong.
> > Aww... that's kind of cute that you're using words used against
> > creationists back toward scientists. Kind of like watching a five-year-
> > old swear... you're kind of amused and horrified at the same time.
> > Your morbid fascination with asinine word games aside, reproductive
> > success is a measure of the number of "non-sterile" descendents from a
> > given organism.
>
> Sure, but other than noteing the number of "non-sterile" descendents
> how was the success of the organism determined?
As we've mentioned, this is a MEASURE of the biological success.
>
> > So basically your word games would be like "What does 'measure
> > distance' mean?
>
> The sentence has syntax,semantics,grammar and pragmatics, if only all
> evolutionists will write like this ....sigh....
I guess the point went over your head.
>
> > It's just a measure of the total
> > number of non-sterile descendents an organism has.
>
> And the total number or descendents(non-sterile) was never predicted
> but was discovered.
And nowhere in the definition is anything else implied.
> If I discover five lion cubs instead of one I have
> made a discovery not formulated a theory as to why there are five.
Except for the fact that you should explain WHY there are five. This
isn't a prediction of evolution. It's a measure to determine how
successful a given organism was at passing on it's genes.
> What is your theory as to why there are non-sterile descendents other
> than telling me they were a "success"?
It would depend on the species and the environment in question.
Perhaps they had longer legs when longer legs would be beneficial.
Perhaps they could hold their breath longer in an environment where
water was abundant and the food was at the bottom. Perhaps they could
hold onto branches with their feet better, and allowed them to reach
tastier food at the top of a tree.
Get it?
rappoccio
> On Jun 15, 1:12 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> The theory of biological evolution can be stated as simply as change
> > in allele frequency over time. I don't know who came up with that,
>
> Exactly but we know who came up with "Newton's theory of gravitation"
> Every single scientific theory has an author except the "Theory of
> Evolution". As stated Darwin used the phrase
> "theory of evolution" only once, yet he never told us what is the TOE.
> So again I ask why do you say that the observation of "allele
> frequency changes" is a theory? You have just restated your
> observation but this is independant of any theory as to why the
> alleles change.
>
> > You have the theory of evolution by natural selection.
>
> Who's theory of evolution? Where is the theory do you mean the phrase
> "theory of evolution" as used by Darwin or are you refering to
> somebody else? Would you point me to a ULR that explains the theory of
> evolution.
Why is it that you disallow multiple people to work on a problem, and
require the idea to be formulated all at once by one person in one
paper?
The very idea is preposterous. Science very often doesn't work the way
you think it does. Very often multiple people contribute to a theory
that is devloped slowly over time, in many different papers. Show me
who invented quantum mechanics. When was the word "quantum mechanics"
first used? What was the first paper that shows "quantum mechanics" is
proven science? Same thing with renormalizable group theory. And
quantum electrodynamics. And thermodynamics. And electricity and
magnetism. And the theory of gravity.
Why is it that evolution should require some "special" case that no
other science is required to have? Other science is created slowly,
over years of papers and with lots of authors. Why not evolution?
Answer: You're too much of a coward to admit that your religion might
be wrong.
Full stop.
rappoccio
How far down the chain do we have to go? Do you accept that chemistry
is valid? Or do we have to go back down to a quantum mechanical
formalism of chemical bonding sites?
> I know it changes,
Then you know evolution occurs.
> but that is what you must explain to me: Why do they change?
Because the genetic copying mechanism is imperfect and often results
in errors.
Why is this so hard to understand?
> The moons
> orbit around the earth changes inventing a phrase: Theory of moon
> orbit is the change in the moon's orbit contains the word theory but
> is not a theory.
This doesn't even make sense as an English sentence.
>
> > Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. What is so hard to
> > understand?
>
> I don't what I am supposed to understand since your sentence has no
> pragmatics. What naturaled and who did the selecting?
"Naturaled"? That's not even a word.
Who did the selection? Not who, but what. It was the environment
(hence NATURAL selection as opposed to ARTIFICIAL selection that is
practiced by animal breeders to enhance genetic traits).
> You will tell me
> nobody did the selecting, but then why are you using the word
> "selection" then?
It's a historical colloquialism to distinguish it from artificial
selection. In any case, the environment can blindly select. You're
just making a stupid semantic argument that because something is used
as a colloquialism then the theory isn't true.
It's like saying "gravity means something serious, therefore the
theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't mean anything is
serious".
> What do you mean what is your intent or pragmatics.
> Your statement as it stands only has grammar, semantics and syntax.
> It has no pragmatics and until you tell me your intent it is not even
> wrong.
You keep saying those words. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
backspace
> Who did the selection? Not who, but what. It was the environment
> (hence NATURAL selection as opposed to ARTIFICIAL selection that is
> practiced by animal breeders to enhance genetic traits).
mistaken impression that the phrase was used before Darwin was
actually coined by Darwin in 1859. Dr. Wilkins acknowledged his error
and thanked me for it. Yet added that "... the concept was in play
before Darwin's time...." Well that depends on what we mean by
"Artificial Selection". Since Darwin coined it we need to try and
understand what his pragmatics was with the phrase.
If we discovered just the phrase "Artificial Selection" written on a
tablet it would have no meaning since we wouldn't know what the author
meant by it.
Nobody "artificialed" anything before Darwin messed up the English
language. The phrase occurs only once in Origin of Species.
Quoting 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 ..........which may have been effected........ through nature's
power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest...."
I have no idea what Darwin meant by this what was his pragmatics? We
simply don't know and we can't ask Darwin, he conveniantly is dead and
thus these meaningless debates will continue for another 300 years
since "Artificial Selection" has no meaning without intent or
pragmatics. For example "nature's power or selection" Does nature do
gym or lift weights or is this nature's mental powers. Does nature
have a mind all of its own? Some would say no. That might your view,
but what was Darwin's view? We have no idea and since we don't know,
we don't know what Darwin meant by Artficial Selection and therefore
rappoccio your statement "....Not who but what...." is meaningless
since you are basing it on what Darwin wrote. And what he wrote and
what he meant - his pragmatics is something only Charles Darwin can
tell us.
> > You will tell me
> > nobody did the selecting, but then why are you using the word
> > "selection" then?
> It's a historical colloquialism to distinguish it from artificial
> selection.
Says who. Who did the distinguishing if nobody knows what Darwins
pragmatics was with artificial selection.
> In any case, the environment can blindly select.
Your statement has no pragmatics. What do you mean by blind? If it can
blindly select than what happens if it "seeingly selects"? Clarify
please because until you do, you are not even wrong.
backspace
> When was the word "quantum mechanics" first used?
What is even more interesting is what did Darwin mean by it since he
knew not of genes and what do we meany by since we do. The meaning of
"Quantum mechanics" when used in journals and papers is in 99% of the
cases clear due to the surrounding sentences giving it
syntax,semantics, grammar and pragmatics. But just the phrase "quantum
mechanics" written on a piece of paper that you found in the road has
no pragmatics since you don't know what the author meant by it.
Pragmatics is the key missing element in these debates. Do you admit
rappocio that without 'Pragmatics' or intent a sentence is not even
wrong?
> Why is it that evolution should require some "special" case that no
> other science is required to have? Other science is created slowly,
> over years of papers and with lots of authors. Why not evolution?
Until you define for me what exactly do you mean by Evolution you are
not even wrong. For example the word "evolution" was used before the
discovery of genes and it was used after its discovery. Now what do we
mean by "evolution" before and after?
Kent
What difference does it make who first did it? The important thing is
not who did it but what is the evidence. I know every few physicists
who have read Kepler or Newton's original papers (even in
translation). However Newton's law are checked regularly in
undergraduate science labs. It does not matter what Kepler, Newton,
Darwin thought. The question is not who did it but what evidence is
there.
Kent
Spyder Man
> > Why is it that evolution should require some "special" case that no
> > other science is required to have? Other science is created slowly,
> > over years of papers and with lots of authors. Why not evolution?
>
> Until you define for me what exactly do you mean by Evolution you are
> not even wrong. For example the word "evolution" was used before the
> discovery of genes and it was used after its discovery. Now what do we
> mean by "evolution" before and after?
Hey, backspace!
Evolution is a lines of descent chart that people
put up on their walls.
rappoccio
> On Jun 15, 7:37 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:> Who did the selection? Not who, but what. It was the environment
> > (hence NATURAL selection as opposed to ARTIFICIAL selection that is
> > practiced by animal breeders to enhance genetic traits).
>
> Artificial Selection as I pointed out to Dr.Wilkins who was under the
> mistaken impression that the phrase was used before Darwin was
> actually coined by Darwin in 1859.
Did I claim otherwise?
> Dr. Wilkins acknowledged his error
> and thanked me for it. Yet added that "... the concept was in play
> before Darwin's time...." Well that depends on what we mean by
> "Artificial Selection".
Breeding by human beings to enhance some genetic traits over others.
> Since Darwin coined it we need to try and
> understand what his pragmatics was with the phrase.
> If we discovered just the phrase "Artificial Selection" written on a
> tablet it would have no meaning since we wouldn't know what the author
> meant by it.
So you're just a semantics word geek? That you don't like scientific
colloquialisms? That you think that somehow the theory is actually
based on what words are used as jargon?
No wonder you don't understand anything.
>
> Nobody "artificialed" anything before Darwin messed up the English
> language. The phrase occurs only once in Origin of Species.
> Quoting 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 ..........which may have been effected........ through nature's
> power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest...."
>
> I have no idea what Darwin meant by this what was his pragmatics?
That man can artificially select certain genes above others to
propagate into the overall population.
You simply can't comprehend English. Well, can't, or won't.
> We
> simply don't know and we can't ask Darwin, he conveniantly is dead and
> thus these meaningless debates will continue for another 300 years
> since "Artificial Selection" has no meaning without intent or
> pragmatics.
No, this debate will occur as long as religious people like yourself
place magic over reality.
> For example "nature's power or selection" Does nature do
> gym or lift weights or is this nature's mental powers.
>From the definition of "power" in the English dictionary: "ability to
do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."
> Does nature
> have a mind all of its own?
Does the definition of the word require it? For someone who's so hung
up on terminology, you sure as hell don't understand English very
well.
> Some would say no. That might your view,
> but what was Darwin's view? We have no idea and since we don't know,
> we don't know what Darwin meant by Artficial Selection and therefore
> rappoccio your statement "....Not who but what...." is meaningless
> since you are basing it on what Darwin wrote. And what he wrote and
> what he meant - his pragmatics is something only Charles Darwin can
> tell us.
<sigh>
Not true at all. The ENTIRETY of his intent is totally clear from this
passage. You're either fucking with us and just like to get a rise out
of people, are actually too stupid to realize what he's saying, or
deliberately misrepresenting the facts of the situation (or in fact,
all three).
>
> > > You will tell me
> > > nobody did the selecting, but then why are you using the word
> > > "selection" then?
> > It's a historical colloquialism to distinguish it from artificial
> > selection.
>
> Says who. Who did the distinguishing if nobody knows what Darwins
> pragmatics was with artificial selection.
No one except every biologist on the planet, most people that speak
English and have read the passage, and even people that have read it
in translation.
In other words, everyone except you.
>
> > In any case, the environment can blindly select.
>
> Your statement has no pragmatics. What do you mean by blind?
Without bias.
> If it can
> blindly select than what happens if it "seeingly selects"? Clarify
> please because until you do, you are not even wrong.
You're just arguing with semantic shit. It just makes you look
childish and stupid. You aren't being clever. You're acting like a
moron.
backspace
Phil.the.Pape...@gmail.com
Meanwhile, we wait for your definition of "pragmatics."
backspace
And other than telling me that inherited traits differ what is the
evidence for "evolution" and what exactly is "evolution"?
rappoccio
>
> When was the word "Evolution" first used is an interesting question.
> What is even more interesting is what did Darwin mean by it since he
> knew not of genes and what do we meany by since we do.
> The meaning of
> "Quantum mechanics" when used in journals and papers is in 99% of the
> cases clear due to the surrounding sentences giving it
> syntax,semantics, grammar and pragmatics.
I see you conveniently dodged the questions I asked.
Not surprising coming from an intellectually dishonest liar.
> But just the phrase "quantum
> mechanics" written on a piece of paper that you found in the road has
> no pragmatics since you don't know what the author meant by it.
> Pragmatics is the key missing element in these debates. Do you admit
> rappocio that without 'Pragmatics' or intent a sentence is not even
> wrong?
Actually, it's just your assertion that the theory of evolution is not
a pragmatic definition that is unambiguous. It's as clear as saying
"quantum mechanics" in a paper within the context. So your point of
contention is just invented by yourself so that you don't actually
have to argue with the facts of evolution, but can rather sneak in
your beliefs in Santa Claus and magic into science classes.
> > Why is it that evolution should require some "special" case that no
> > other science is required to have? Other science is created slowly,
> > over years of papers and with lots of authors. Why not evolution?
>
> Until you define for me what exactly do you mean by Evolution you are
> not even wrong. For example the word "evolution" was used before the
> discovery of genes and it was used after its discovery.
Again, you're being a dishonest, lying idiot. The EXACT same thing can
be said about "quantum mechanics". Quantum mechanics isn't even
"complete". We still don't know the answers. We still use the word
"quantum mechanics" before we understand it's full implication.
However somehow this doesn't dawn on you.
> Now what do we
> mean by "evolution" before and after?
The definition changed after further study was performed. Is that
okay? That science advances? Or should we just stick to the pre-
genetic information age of Darwin himself to "disprove" a theory that
he began, and others changed, verified, modified, and expanded in the
following 150 years. Do you want to show that Darwin didn't know what
caused mutation? Too late. He did that part himself.
Here's the history of the theory of evolution in the MODERN sense that
has changed (GASP!) since 1860:
"Evolutionary ideas such as common descent and the transmutation of
species have existed since at least the 6th century BC, when they were
expounded by the Greek philosopher Anaximander,[144] and were
developed by other early thinkers, including the Greek philosopher
Empedocles, the Roman philosopher Lucretius, and the Arab biologist Al-
Jahiz.[145] As biological knowledge grew in the 18th century, a
variety of such ideas developed, beginning with Pierre Maupertuis in
1745, and with contributions from natural philosophers such as Erasmus
Darwin and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.[146] In 1858, Charles Darwin and
Alfred Russel Wallace jointly proposed the theory of evolution by
natural selection to the Linnean Society of London in separate papers.
[147] Shortly after, Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species
provided detailed support for the theory and led to increasingly wide
acceptance of the occurrence of evolution.
Nonetheless, Darwin's specific ideas about evolution, such as
gradualism and the mechanisms of natural selection, were strongly
contested at first. Lamarckists argued that transmutation of species
occurred as parents passed on adaptations acquired during their
lifetimes.[148] Eventually, when experiments failed to support it,
this idea was abandoned in favor of Darwinism.[149] More
significantly, Darwin could not account for how traits were passed
down from generation to generation. A mechanism was provided in 1865
by Gregor Mendel, who found that traits were inherited in a
predictable manner.[150] When Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900,
disagreements over the rate of evolution predicted by early
geneticists and biometricians led to a rift between the Mendelian and
Darwinian models of evolution.
Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundation for genetics.
Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundation for genetics.
This contradiction was reconciled in the 1930s by biologists such as
Ronald Fisher. The end result was a combination of evolution by
natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary
synthesis, or "Neo-Darwinism".[151] In the 1940s, the identification
of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues and the
subsequent publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and
Francis Crick in 1953, demonstrated the physical basis for
inheritance. Since then, genetics and molecular biology have become
core parts of evolutionary biology and have revolutionized the field
of phylogenetics.[117]
In its early history, evolutionary biology primarily drew in
scientists from traditional taxonomically-oriented disciplines, whose
specialist training in particular organisms addressed general
questions in evolution. As evolutionary biology expanded as an
academic discipline, particularly after the development of the modern
evolutionary synthesis, it began to draw more widely from the
biological sciences.[117] Currently the study of evolutionary biology
involves scientists from fields as diverse as biochemistry, ecology,
genetics and physiology, and evolutionary concepts are used in even
more distant disciplines such as psychology, medicine, philosophy and
computer science."
So in the 1930's, the modern theory of evolution was born (and is
distinct from pure Darwinian evolution, congratulations, you're 80
years late in proving it was incomplete).
rappoccio
None at all, that's my entire point. Our native nutjob backspace here
seems to think otherwise, that what words are used in jargon (which
often disagree with certain usages of the word) is what is important,
and not the actual theory. It makes for very stupid arguments from
him.
Cory Albrecht
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:05:11 -0700, backspace
> <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
>> next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>>
>> Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
>> manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
>> genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
>
>
So then we have gnathostomes with frickin' laser reproductometers on
their heads?
backspace
> On Jun 15, 2:37 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 7:29 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com>
> okay?
not even wrong.
> This contradiction was reconciled in the 1930s by biologists such as
> Ronald Fisher. The end result was a combination of evolution by
> natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary
> synthesis, or "Neo-Darwinism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Modern_synthesisis_is_not_defined
"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
& M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
> So in the 1930's, the modern theory of evolution was born
> and is distinct from pure Darwinian evolution
What is the difference between Darwinian evolution and evolution?
Michael Ruse on CNN said that 90% of evolutionary scientists accept
"Darwinism". What does Darwinism mean? What is the difference between
The Modern Theory of Evolution and the single phrase "Theory of
Evolutoin" in Origin of Species?
rappoccio
> rappoccio wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2:37 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 7:29 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com>
> > The definition changed after further study was performed. Is that
> > okay?
>
> You didn't provide the original defenition and until you do you are
> not even wrong.
Pre-modern evolution was that species evolved into other species in
response to environmental pressures.
And now your semantic stupid argument would be....?
>
> > This contradiction was reconciled in the 1930s by biologists such as
> > Ronald Fisher. The end result was a combination of evolution by
> > natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary
> > synthesis, or "Neo-Darwinism".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Moder...
> "There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
> few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
> precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
> curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
> might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
> over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
> definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
> as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
> & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
> Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
So a few creationists on a Wikipedia article agree with you? I'm going
out on a limb and say you actually read this one tiny paragraph (or
maybe went as far as reading the actual paper it references) and have
been haranguing everyone on this board ever since with your (and
their) non-objection as if it's somehow interesting, important, a
thorn in the side to the theory of evolution, or actually relevant.
So let's see if your Harry Potter Santa Claus Tooth Fairy Magic
Creationism does any better.
What does creationism state, specifically? Can you quote the original
source? The Bible doesn't count, it's not old enough. You better get
out and find the first person that claimed creationism made all the
species on the planet.
Get to it.
> > So in the 1930's, the modern theory of evolution was born
> > and is distinct from pure Darwinian evolution
>
> What is the difference between Darwinian evolution and evolution?
Darwin wasn't aware of genetic mutation or DNA.
> Michael Ruse on CNN said that 90% of evolutionary scientists accept
> "Darwinism". What does Darwinism mean? What is the difference between
> The Modern Theory of Evolution and the single phrase "Theory of
> Evolutoin" in Origin of Species?
Because modern people know what DNA is, that it causes protein
expression, is subject to replication errors, and is therefore the
cause of mutations that can have a higher probability of being
transmitted to subsequent generations in a specific environment.
richardal...@googlemail.com
You will learn the "pragmatics" by educating yourself in the subject.
I and others on this forum can provide a list of books which will give
you a sound grounding in the subject if that's what you want.
If you don't want to learn, I see little point in posting responses
to your questions. Your silly, dogmatic semantic assertions only make
you look stupid.
RF
backspace
> Pre-modern evolution was that species evolved into other species in
> response to environmental pressures.
> And now your semantic stupid argument would be....?
The semantic argument would be: What is the difference between "modern
evolution" and "evolution" ?
> So a few creationists on a Wikipedia article agree with you? I'm going
> out on a limb and say you actually read this one tiny paragraph (or
> maybe went as far as reading the actual paper it references) and have
> been haranguing everyone on this board ever since with your (and
> their) non-objection as if it's somehow interesting, important, a
> thorn in the side to the theory of evolution, or actually relevant.
Depends what you mean by "Theory of Evolution" - what theory? You
must clearly spell out your theory for me without telling me stuff
survived or reproduced or got naturaled.
Stuart
> ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
> next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
>
> Now other than noting that organisms passed on their genes in such a
> manner that succeeding generations can also pass on their parents
> genes on how was their "success" actually measured?
By differential reproductive propensity.
Stuart
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I have no idea what Darwin meant by this what was his pragmatics?
backspace seems to be at the bottom of the literary ladder in science.
every scientist who's studied evolution knows what the theory is and
what it claims.
he's too stupid to read a book, it seems
typical creationist
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Where was the TOE tested, tested by whom? Where were the results
>published.
>
who first thought up god? where was it published? how was it tested?
you seem to think 'god did it' is science...
even by YOUR 'definition', it isnt...
wf...@comcast.net
quantum physics/ relativity...no general application of both theories
to a phenomenon until hawking conceived of 'hawking radiation'...
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 15, 7:29 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When was the word "quantum mechanics" first used?
>When was the word "Evolution" first used is an interesting question.
>What is even more interesting is what did Darwin mean by it since he
>knew not of genes and what do we meany by since we do. The meaning of
>"Quantum mechanics" when used in journals and papers is in 99% of the
>cases clear due to the surrounding sentences giving it
>syntax,semantics, grammar and pragmatics. But just the phrase "quantum
>mechanics" written on a piece of paper that you found in the road has
>no pragmatics since you don't know what the author meant by it.
>Pragmatics is the key missing element in these debates. Do you admit
>rappocio that without 'Pragmatics' or intent a sentence is not even
>wrong?
funny..those of us who've studied both evolution AND QM see no problem
with understanding...so to speak...the science behind both.
backspace is a religious funide. believing in his god, it seems, makes
you stupid.
Guido
<snip>
> Every single scientific theory has an author except the "Theory of
> Evolution".
Then the following question should be easy for you. Who is the sole
author of the theory of Quantum Mechanics?
<snip remainder>
ric...@cbrp.co.uk
Rolf
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181931500.2...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
what he wrote. I am looking forward to the questions you would raise about
what the authors of the bible wrote. Who do you think you could ask and get
a straight answer?
>
Rolf
You obviously must have studied and thought a lot about this and related
issues. So with what you already have got, how would you define evolution?
I could write down what I think the theory of evolution is, probably not
being able to include all elements, but still an approximation, a coarse
overview of what it is.
You can do that, can't you? Or will you just say "Sorry, I have not got
enough information to enable me to have an opinion. To me, evolution, as
used in 'the theroy of evolution' is just a word without content."
Grandbank
>
>
> The semantic argument would be: What is the difference between "modern
> evolution" and "evolution" ?
No, that doesn't even remotely concern semantics. It is apparent you
have confused semantics with obfuscation.
KP
rappoccio
> On Jun 15, 10:21 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pre-modern evolution was that species evolved into other species in
> > response to environmental pressures.
> > And now your semantic stupid argument would be....?
>
> The semantic argument would be: What is the difference between "modern
> evolution" and "evolution" ?
Because modern evolutionary theory understands the mechanism WHY this
occurs... mutations in DNA.
> > So a few creationists on a Wikipedia article agree with you? I'm going
> > out on a limb and say you actually read this one tiny paragraph (or
> > maybe went as far as reading the actual paper it references) and have
> > been haranguing everyone on this board ever since with your (and
> > their) non-objection as if it's somehow interesting, important, a
> > thorn in the side to the theory of evolution, or actually relevant.
>
> Depends what you mean by "Theory of Evolution" - what theory? You
> must clearly spell out your theory for me without telling me stuff
> survived or reproduced or got
Changing allele frequencies which result in new species, often in
response to environmental influences.
> naturaled.
"Naturaled" isn't a word.
backspace
> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181934806.1...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Kent wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 10:29 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What difference does it make who first did it? The important thing is
> > > not who did it but what is the evidence. I know every few physicists
> > > who have read Kepler or Newton's original papers (even in
> > > translation). However Newton's law are checked regularly in
> > > undergraduate science labs. It does not matter what Kepler, Newton,
> > > Darwin thought. The question is not who did it but what evidence is
> > > there.
> > > Kent
>
> > And other than telling me that inherited traits differ what is the
> > evidence for "evolution" and what exactly is "evolution"?
>
> You obviously must have studied and thought a lot about this and related
> issues. So with what you already have got, how would you define evolution?
>
Why do you assume there even is a Theory of Evolution? Darwin and
millions of other people use the phrase "Theory of Evolution" but as
Berlinski pointed out in the Fireline debate between Scott,
Johnson,Miller and Ruse: " I have been looking for a theory of
evolution now for years but I have not yet found a theory of
evolution".
Darwin wrote down a sentence on paper with the words:"Theory of
Evolution". Imagine if I could write down "Theory of Aztec Cosmology"
on paper, die and 150 years later have Creationists, IDsts,
Evolutionists and the entire popular culture argue over the phrase
"Theory of Aztec Cosmology" , yet I never ever gave a theory. Now how
in the world did we get our entire society to argue over the truth or
non-truth of a phrase written down -- "Theory of Evolution" 150 years
ago , yet the author Darwin never actually gave a Theory of
Evolution? It is no wonder everybody has become mentally ill - there
is no theory of Evolution! And if you disagree then allow me to quote
you Darwin yet again:
Darwin:
"...If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life at once, the
fact would be fatal to the THEORY of EVOLUTION through natural
selection....."
He never told us what he meant by the symbol string "..Theory of
Evolution...." Would anybody around here care to speculate on what
Darwin could have meant by it? What I simply don't understand is what
possible relevance could it have. He didn't even know about genes -
why are we even talking about Darwin and his non-specified Theory of
Evolution.
Even Wikipedia was clever enough not to have a page with "Theory of
Evolution" but just Evolution. Which ofcourse means nothing because
Wikipedia must tell us what do they mean by "Evolution" and what
relation does this have with "Theory of Evolution". Evolution could
mean anything, only the context you use the word in makes it clear
what is your pragmatics.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I could write down what I think the theory of evolution is .....
>Why do you assume there even is a Theory of Evolution? Darwin and
>millions of other people use the phrase "Theory of Evolution" but as
>Berlinski pointed out in the Fireline debate between Scott,
>Johnson,Miller and Ruse: " I have been looking for a theory of
>evolution now for years but I have not yet found a theory of
>evolution".
guess the same could be said of any idea in science. seems you and the
true believers don't understand it well enough not to understand it. q
>
>Darwin wrote down a sentence on paper with the words:"Theory of
>Evolution". Imagine if I could write down "Theory of Aztec Cosmology"
>on paper, die and 150 years later have Creationists, IDsts,
>Evolutionists and the entire popular culture argue over the phrase
>"Theory of Aztec Cosmology" , yet I never ever gave a theory
planck used quantum mechanics to solve the riddle of black body
radiation yet he did not realize its full implications.
guess that means your computer, based on quantum physics, doesn't
work, right
oh...incidentally you still haven't told me what the term
'god created the heavens and earth' means...
ric...@cbrp.co.uk
> On Jun 16, 1:50 pm, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1181934806.1...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Kent wrote:
> > > > On Jun 15, 10:29 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What difference does it make who first did it? The important thing is
> > > > not who did it but what is the evidence. I know every few physicists
> > > > who have read Kepler or Newton's original papers (even in
> > > > translation). However Newton's law are checked regularly in
> > > > undergraduate science labs. It does not matter what Kepler, Newton,
> > > > Darwin thought. The question is not who did it but what evidence is
> > > > there.
> > > > Kent
>
> > > And other than telling me that inherited traits differ what is the
> > > evidence for "evolution" and what exactly is "evolution"?
>
> > You obviously must have studied and thought a lot about this and related
> > issues. So with what you already have got, how would you define evolution?
>
> > I could write down what I think the theory of evolution is .....
>
> Why do you assume there even is a Theory of Evolution?
Evolution happens. We observe it happening.
Evolutionary theory tries to explain the mechanism whereby it happens.
What is unclear about this?
> Darwin and
> millions of other people use the phrase "Theory of Evolution" but as
> Berlinski pointed out in the Fireline debate between Scott,
> Johnson,Miller and Ruse: " I have been looking for a theory of
> evolution now for years but I have not yet found a theory of
> evolution".
Why should anyone give a shit what a fellow of the DI asserts?
There are many evolutionary biologists who understand the nature of
theory in science - something Berlinski apparently doesn't.
>
> Darwin wrote down a sentence on paper with the words:"Theory of
> Evolution".
No, he wrote a freaking book!
> Imagine if I could write down "Theory of Aztec Cosmology"
> on paper, die and 150 years later have Creationists, IDsts,
> Evolutionists and the entire popular culture argue over the phrase
> "Theory of Aztec Cosmology" , yet I never ever gave a theory.
You also didn't write a book explaining what you meant by that phrase,
provided a detailed account of your theory and the evidence which
supports it or explored the ways by which your theory could be
falsified.
Darwin did.
> Now how
> in the world did we get our entire society to argue over the truth or
> non-truth of a phrase written down -- "Theory of Evolution" 150 years
> ago , yet the author Darwin never actually gave a Theory of
> Evolution? It is no wonder everybody has become mentally ill - there
> is no theory of Evolution! And if you disagree then allow me to quote
> you Darwin yet again:
> Darwin:
>
> "...If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
> have really started into life at once, the
> fact would be fatal to the THEORY of EVOLUTION through natural
> selection....."
Try reading the rest of the book, and try to understand it.
Then read a whole load of other books and learn how evolutionary
theory has developed over the past 150 years.
> He never told us what he meant by the symbol string "..Theory of
> Evolution...." Would anybody around here care to speculate on what
> Darwin could have meant by it? What I simply don't understand is what
> possible relevance could it have. He didn't even know about genes -
> why are we even talking about Darwin and his non-specified Theory of
> Evolution.
>
> Even Wikipedia was clever enough not to have a page with "Theory of
> Evolution" but just Evolution. Which ofcourse means nothing because
> Wikipedia must tell us what do they mean by "Evolution" and what
> relation does this have with "Theory of Evolution". Evolution could
> mean anything, only the context you use the word in makes it clear
> what is your pragmatics.
The "pragmatics" are provided by education.
If you refuse to educate yourself - and the fact that you do not
respond to offers to provide you with a list of educational reading
material demonstrates that you have no desire to learn - you will
never understand what anything means.
It is perfectly clear that the scientists working in the various
fields of evolutionary science know what is meant by the theory of
evolution, so why not attempt to understand what they are doing and
why they are doing it?
If you get your information from creationist sources - and that
includes the DI, of course - you will get misrepresentation,
distortion and falsehoods. You will find that academic sources are
more honest and more accurate.
But in the end it's up to you. You can persist in this stupid pretence
that your facile semantic nonsense somehow undermines a whole field of
science, or you can try to learn why the scientists working in that
field have drawn the conclusions they have from the evidence they have
studied. If you don't want to learn anything, why bother to carry on
posting this nonsense? Nobody will be persuaded by it, you don't have
any point to make, and the more you post the more dishonest and stupid
you look.
As I said, it's up to you. I have no problem with a creationist making
themselves look ignorant and dishonest.
RF
Spider Man
Yeah, but evolution, though not well defined,
is essentially a lines of descent chart; of course,
these same people who can't prove their chart
as true will use a strawman and accuse you
of believing in magic, whilst clinging themselves
to belief in about 1 billion peter pans that don't
exist ...
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 15, 3:09 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 8:48 pm, Spyder Man <SpyderM...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 15, 2:37 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Why is it that evolution should require some "special" case that no
> > > > > other science is required to have? Other science is created slowly,
> > > > > over years of papers and with lots of authors. Why not evolution?
>
> > > > Until you define for me what exactly do you mean by Evolution you are
> > > > not even wrong. For example the word "evolution" was used before the
> > > > discovery of genes and it was used after its discovery. Now what do we
> > > > mean by "evolution" before and after?
>
> > > Hey, backspace!
>
> > > Evolution is a lines of descent chart that people put up on their walls.
>
> > And until you define evolution you are not even wrong.
>
> Yeah, but evolution, though not well defined,
What's wrong with the following definition:
"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a
population from generation to generation. These traits are the
expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during
reproduction. Mutations, and other random changes in these genes, can
produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences
(genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from
transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal
gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences
become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through
natural selection or randomly through genetic drift."
Seems pretty well defined to me. What parts of it do you find hard to
understand?
> is essentially a lines of descent chart;
It is? Funny, but that's not the way any evolutionary biologist would
describe its essence.
What do you know that the people who have studied the subject don't?
> of course,
> these same people who can't prove their chart
They're not trying to "prove" any chart. They are offering the best
explanation they can find for a vast amount of evidence, and
constantly testing that model by research.
> as true will use a strawman and accuse you
> of believing in magic,
If you want to believe in magic, feel free. If you want to present a
scientific explanation for the evidence, present a scientific
explanation for the evidence. But don't insist that the supernatural
must be allowed in science when the only reason to do so is to allow
your religious convictions to be taught as science.
> whilst clinging themselves
> to belief in about 1 billion peter pans that don't
> exist ...
If you have a better explanation for the evidence - all the evidence -
please present it.
RF
mel turner
news:1182022375.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
No previous posting history and he uses his apparent first posts to
cheer "backspace" on. Might this be a sockpuppet, or just another
usual customer under a new 'nym?
> On Jun 15, 3:09 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 8:48 pm, Spyder Man <SpyderM...@gmail.com> wrote:>
On Jun 15, 2:37 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Why is it that evolution should require some "special" case that no
>> > > > other science is required to have? Other science is created slowly,
>> > > > over years of papers and with lots of authors. Why not evolution?
>>
>> > > Until you define for me what exactly do you mean by Evolution you are
>> > > not even wrong. For example the word "evolution" was used before the
>> > > discovery of genes and it was used after its discovery. Now what do
>> > > we
>> > > mean by "evolution" before and after?
>>
>> > Hey, backspace!
>>
>> > Evolution is a lines of descent chart that people put up on their
>> > walls.
>>
>> And until you define evolution you are not even wrong.
>
> Yeah, but evolution, though not well defined,
Sure it is. "Backspace" is ignoring the definitions he's been
given.
> is essentially a lines of descent chart;
No, it isn't that at all.
>of course,
> these same people who can't prove their chart
> as true will use a strawman
How ironic. Showing that biological evolution is very well supported
by the scientific evidence isn't about proving that any "chart" is
true. That's just your strawman, in other words.
>and accuse you of believing in magic,
I don't recall that "backspace" has gotten around to actually arguing
for anything yet. Or against, for that matter. He just seemed to want
to be given definitions to ignore. But then, I might have missed it.
>whilst clinging themselves
> to belief in about 1 billion peter pans that don't
> exist ...
"Peter pans"?
Oh, okay, so it's _that_ other [?] silly person.
cheers
Baron Bodissey
wrote:
There was a poster who called himself Peter Pan who started the thread
"Star Trek III: The Search for Peter Pan," on May 14. "How many Peter
Pan's were there?" was a line from his first post. There was some
subsequent discussion that "Peter Pan" and "Derdag" were one and the
same.
Baron Bodissey
My mind is a scary place.
- The Tick
Ernest Major
<mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> writes
>"Spider Man" <man...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1182022375.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>No previous posting history and he uses his apparent first posts to
>cheer "backspace" on. Might this be a sockpuppet, or just another usual
>customer under a new 'nym?
The choice of lexis suggests feedback/Peter Pan, but the IP addresses
don't match.
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
> In message <f529b8$65...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, mel turner
> <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> writes
>
> >"Spider Man" <man...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1182022375.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >No previous posting history and he uses his apparent first posts to
> >cheer "backspace" on. Might this be a sockpuppet, or just another usual
> >customer under a new 'nym?
>
> The choice of lexis suggests feedback/Peter Pan, but the IP addresses
> don't match.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
I wouldn't even know how to create a sockpuppet - Now instead of
derailing the thread has anybody actually managed to figure out
according to whom is the phrase "reproductive success" because without
an author it has no intent or pragmatics. Do you agree or disagree? I
don't actually expect this to be answered by Ernest Major though.
The evolutionists never answer my core concerns let me ask it one
more time:
Dear Ernest Major:
Do you agree , disagree or do you have no opinion on my view
concerning "reproductive success"?
ric...@cbrp.co.uk
If you want to know the answer to this question, I can recommend a
number of excellent books which will provide you with the information
you need.
So: Do you want me to post my list of recommendations, or do you
prefer to remain ignorant?
It's education in a subject which provides the "pragmatics" which you
keep demanding.
It's up to you.
RF
Ron O
> On Jun 15, 1:12 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:> The theory of biological evolution can be stated as simply as change
> > in allele frequency over time. I don't know who came up with that,
>
> Exactly but we know who came up with "Newton's theory of gravitation"
> fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
> "theory of evolution" only once, yet he never told us what is the TOE.
> So again I ask why do you say that the observation of "allele
> observation but this is independant of any theory as to why the
> alleles change.
For one thing Newton didn't consider what he had established as a
"theory." To Newton a "theory" was handwaving unsupported assertion,
an example of what Newton thought a theory was would be something like
the modern intelligent design bogousity spouted by guys like Behe and
Dembski. "Theory" had a different meaning then than it has to modern
science. In modern science the word theory gets used in a lot of
different ways, but the one that you are trying to get at is the
highest designation modern science can confer on some explanation of
nature. Atomic theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of
biological evolution etc. Some physicists refer to string "theory,"
but the advocates admit that they do not have a scientific theory,
yet. They have an hypothesis that they have been working on for a
long time, but they admit that they haven't reached the level of
validation that is required to gain the designation of scientific
theory in the modern sense. On the other hand you have a bunch of con
artist intelligent design experts that claim to have a "theory" as a
means to scam the public. They purposely try to fool people about
what type of "theory" that they are talking about. Only someone
without a lick of sense couldn't tell the difference between the
advocates of string theory and the intelligent design scam artists.
Darwin used theory in several different senses. General biological
evolution was a concept that predated Darwin. It was just a concept
that the various forms of extant lifeforms were derived from previoius
lifeforms. In the Origin of Species where Darwin put forward his
notions on the evolution by natural selection, this hypothesis would
not have been called a theory by modern science. It would not have
been validated to the point where it would deserve that designation.
We would call it a working hypothesis today. It became a theory in
the modern sense due to the work of a lot of people over time that
validated it to the point where even creationists (some still deny it,
but there are still geocentrist and flat earth creationists too) do
not deny that natural selection acts in nature to change the allele
frequencies in populations. When did the theory of evolution by
natural selection become a theory in the modern sense? I don't know
because it took a lot of factors to establish the fact that it does
occur and convince scientists that it is a valid representation of
nature, and scientists are still refining it today, just as some
people are still working on just what matter is made of and modifying
things like atomic theory.
You seem to have a simplistic notion of science that isn't warrented,
and is leading you to conclusions that make you look stupid.
Ignorance isn't so bad, and everyone is ignorant about something, but
when you come in with a chip on your shoulder and the chips keep
getting knocked off most people come to realize that there may be
something missing between the chips.
My description of biological evolution as change in allele frequency
over time is just a short description of what biological evolution
is. Nearly all (or depending on how you look at things, all)
explanations included in the description of the theory of biological
evolution is based on that concept. The theory explains the fact that
life forms have changed over time through the history of the earth.
Life's history on earth now extends back to around 3.8 billion years
ago, and it obviously was not always the same as it is today.
Since you seem to have a copy of Origin of Species all you have to do
is read the last paragraph to get a brief description of the theory of
evolution by natural selection and the concept of biological
evolution. The last part of the paragraph is the most quoted, but the
description of natural selection isn't in that part. Since you
probably got your information from some creationist scam sheet I'll
quote it for you.
Quote:
It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many
plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various
insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp
earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so
different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex
a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These
laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction:
Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from
the indirect and direct actions of the conditions of life, and from
use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle
for life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing
Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms.
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of
the higher animals, directly follows. There is a grandeur in this
view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed
by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this
planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from
so simple a begining endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being evolved.
END QUOTE:
A nice summary. He did leave out a major point that he established in
the book, that all species produce an excess number of offspring.
Excess in respect to what is needed for the perpetuation of the
species. There is a competition for resources and the numbers are
winnowed. You have to note that Darwin didn't know about genetics and
didn't know the source of his genetic variation, but that has all been
worked out today, and he didn't know the great antiquity of the origin
of life on earth. We are also still stuck with his basic description
of biological evolution. All extant lifeforms seem to have evolved
from one or a few original lifeforms through the process of descent
with modification.
>
> > You have the theory of evolution by natural selection.
>
> Who's theory of evolution? Where is the theory do you mean the phrase
> "theory of evolution" as used by Darwin or are you refering to
> somebody else? Would you point me to a ULR that explains the theory of
> evolution.
Darwin and Wallace were the first ones to come up with the original
hypothesis, but hundreds, heck, thousands of scientists have made it
into the theory that it is today. If you need a URL ask someone
else. I'd suggest that you go to a decent University bookstore and
buy a textbook on biological evolution. Evolution by Douglas J.
Futuyma was the book used in the class that I took, but that was over
20 years ago. You really need to read a book like Futuyma's if you
want more than soundbites as your knowledge background. Biological
evolution is a sound and well established theory, and anyone that took
the time to look into the matter would come to that conclusion, as
long as they didn't rely on the antiscience claptrap put out by
creationist scam artists. You have to check out the science.
Ron Okimoto
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 17, 11:42 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <f529b8$65...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, mel turner
>> <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> writes
>>
>> >"Spider Man" <man...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1182022375.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >No previous posting history and he uses his apparent first posts to
>> >cheer "backspace" on. Might this be a sockpuppet, or just another usual
>> >customer under a new 'nym?
>>
>> The choice of lexis suggests feedback/Peter Pan, but the IP addresses
>> don't match.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>I wouldn't even know how to create a sockpuppet
you ARE a sockpuppet...of religion...you just dont realize it.
>
>The evolutionists never answer my core concerns
you dont have 'core' concerns. you have a sophomoric arguing position
and it is this:
evolution alone is the only undefined concept in the liexicon.
god, to you, has a definition.
'god created' has a definition.
science, to you, does not.
you're a 13th century court jester for the religious right.
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jun 17, 11:42 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <f529b8$65...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, mel turner
>> <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> writes
>>
>> >"Spider Man" <man...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1182022375.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >No previous posting history and he uses his apparent first posts to
>> >cheer "backspace" on. Might this be a sockpuppet, or just another usual
>> >customer under a new 'nym?
>>
>> The choice of lexis suggests feedback/Peter Pan, but the IP addresses
>> don't match.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>I wouldn't even know how to create a sockpuppet - Now instead of
>derailing the thread has anybody actually managed to figure out
>according to whom is the phrase "reproductive success" because without
>an author it has no intent or pragmatics. Do you agree or disagree? I
>don't actually expect this to be answered by Ernest Major though.
Is that because you realise that your question is incoherent? You ask me
whether I agree or disagree with something which is not a statement, but
a badly formed, grammatically aberrant question of uncertain meaning.
The question is badly formed because it embeds the false claim about
pragmatics.
The intended meaning (which might be what you mean by intent) of the
phrase "reproductive success" is defined by the immediate author of the
words and is understood in its current context; it does not depend on
the meaning ascribed to the words by a single original author (which on
your past record you might be trying to claim). The pragmatics of the
phrase depend on past, and particularly recent, usage, not solely, or
even mainly, on the meaning of the words ascribed to the words by a
single original author.
If we were to strike out the claim about intent and pragmatics, we are
left with a question the meaning of which is opaque. On your past record
we might suspect that you were asking for an author (but not the authors
of the Wikipedia article - why not? or the authors of the posts in this
thread who have defined it and told you how to measure it - why not? or
the author of the reference cited in the Wikipedia article - why not?).
>The evolutionists never answer my core concerns let me ask it one
>more time:
>Dear Ernest Major:
>Do you agree , disagree or do you have no opinion on my view
>concerning "reproductive success"?
>
I can neither agree nor disagree with you view concerning reproductive
success because I don't know what your view is - I thought you were
claiming that you didn't have a view on the topic because you claim to
not understand the meaning of the phrase. I could make inferences about
what your views are you, but that would require guessing how closely you
approach to being as stupid as you pretend to be.
My opinion is that you know that you're spouting nonsense. Particularly
when elsewhere you turn round and demand a Wikipedia page when offered a
book by a named author establishing the age of the rocks of the Earth.
--
alias Ernest Major
mel turner
> On Jun 17, 11:42 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <f529b8$65...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, mel turner
>> <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> writes
>>
>> >"Spider Man" <man...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1182022375.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >No previous posting history and he uses his apparent first posts to
>> >cheer "backspace" on. Might this be a sockpuppet, or just another usual
>> >customer under a new 'nym?
>>
>> The choice of lexis suggests feedback/Peter Pan, but the IP addresses
>> don't match.
Yes, it's clearly "Peter Pan".
> I wouldn't even know how to create a sockpuppet - Now instead of
> derailing the thread
You'd have to give it some rails first. And wheels.
>has anybody actually managed to figure out
> according to whom is the phrase "reproductive success"
In the context of natural selection? It's according to its usage by
modern evolutionary biologists.
>because without
> an author it has no intent or pragmatics.
So, who authored this silly "intent or pragmatics" business?
Can you quote "formal" definitions of those terms for us?
>Do you agree or disagree?
With your idea that we should only care about "formal" definitions
made by original authors? Definitely disagree.
>I
> don't actually expect this to be answered by Ernest Major though.
And should anyone who isn't you care what you expect?
> The evolutionists never answer my core concerns
You didn't seem to have any that are of much interest.
>let me ask it one
> more time:
> Dear Ernest Major:
> Do you agree , disagree or do you have no opinion on my view
> concerning "reproductive success"?
What view is this? Did you make a claim or state a view, or merely
ask a question? Your first post in this thread only asks a question.
Later ones degenerated into complaining about this "pragmatics"
stuff. If that's the view you're asking about, it's likely everyone
else will be listed in the "disagree" column.
cheers
backspace
> ".....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the
> next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
"...The same criticism applies if one uses the most widely accepted
definition of "fitness" in modern biology, namely reproductive success
itself..........."
Here we have two defenitions. RS is defined as the passing on of genes
by whomever this might be.
And the "fitness" is defined as "reproductive success". So "fitness"
means the genes were passed on ?
Now other than nothing that the genes were passed no how was the
actuall "fitness" measured?
richardal...@googlemail.com
If you want to know the answer to this question, I can recommend a
Noelie S. Alito
> In message <1182083971.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
<snip speculation on the anonymous "backspace">
>> I wouldn't even know how to create a sockpuppet - Now instead of
>> derailing the thread has anybody actually managed to figure out
>> according to whom is the phrase "reproductive success" because without
>> an author it has no intent or pragmatics. Do you agree or disagree? I
>> don't actually expect this to be answered by Ernest Major though.
>
> Is that because you realise that your question is incoherent? You ask me
> whether I agree or disagree with something which is not a statement, but
> a badly formed, grammatically aberrant question of uncertain meaning.
> The question is badly formed because it embeds the false claim about
> pragmatics.
>
> The intended meaning (which might be what you mean by intent) of the
> phrase "reproductive success" is defined by the immediate author of the
> words and is understood in its current context; it does not depend on
> the meaning ascribed to the words by a single original author (which on
> your past record you might be trying to claim). The pragmatics of the
> phrase depend on past, and particularly recent, usage, not solely, or
> even mainly, on the meaning of the words ascribed to the words by a
> single original author.
Ach, now I have the image of someone who has spent years in
confinement, tasked by his keepers to analyze ancient documents
written by archaic or otherwise alien minds to discover original
intent, and never introduced to the concept of studying the
unconscious actions of nature. He's a Talmudic scholar, trying
to learn about the formation of granite by treating the writings
of the early petrologists as Holy Writ. Taking him outside and
picking up an arbitrary chunk of granite to point out its features
would confuse him immensely.
> If we were to strike out the claim about intent and pragmatics, we are
> left with a question the meaning of which is opaque. On your past record
> we might suspect that you were asking for an author (but not the authors
> of the Wikipedia article - why not? or the authors of the posts in this
> thread who have defined it and told you how to measure it - why not? or
> the author of the reference cited in the Wikipedia article - why not?).
Apparently such writings aren't formal or remote enough.
>> The evolutionists never answer my core concerns let me ask it one
>> more time:
>> Dear Ernest Major:
>> Do you agree , disagree or do you have no opinion on my view
>> concerning "reproductive success"?
>>
>
> I can neither agree nor disagree with you view concerning reproductive
> success because I don't know what your view is - I thought you were
> claiming that you didn't have a view on the topic because you claim to
> not understand the meaning of the phrase. I could make inferences about
> what your views are you, but that would require guessing how closely you
> approach to being as stupid as you pretend to be.
>
> My opinion is that you know that you're spouting nonsense. Particularly
> when elsewhere you turn round and demand a Wikipedia page when offered a
> book by a named author establishing the age of the rocks of the Earth.
Yep, that's inconsistent with the original requests for formal
work. Maybe there's a full team of ninnies posting as "backspace".
Noelie
--
"Geologists are obsessed with sex." --Earle McBride
Martin Hutton
On 17-Jun-2007, Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think CD left out reproductive excess:
"...a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for life"
All in all, a marvellous paragraph. "A tangled bank" indeed.
[snip]
--
Martin Hutton
backspace
wrote:
> >has anybody actually managed to figure out
> > according to whom is the phrase "reproductive success"
> In the context of natural selection? It's according to its usage by
> modern evolutionary biologists.
book
".. In that book, Behe updated an old creationist chestnut: the
assertion that some aspects of life could not have evolved by means of
natural selection, because that evolution would have required
untenable steps...."
What is Coyne's intent wth NS?
"....Such features, said Behe, are "irreducibly complex": their
evolution supposedly cannot be reduced to a sequential series of
adaptive steps, as required by Darwinian natural selection......"
What is Coyne's intent wth NS?
"...Well, scientists already knew that "irreducibly complex" features
can indeed be explained by natural selection...."
What is Coyne's intent wth NS?
"....This, in fact, is what Darwin's theory of natural selection did
to the earlier idea that organisms were designed by a Creator...."
Darwin used the phrase Theory of Natural Selection 36 times and said
that it is Survivial of the Fittest. Is this what
Coyne means that those that survived survived and those that didn't,
didn't because they are dead? What is your intent Coyne because nobody
knows what was Darwin's intent with "Theory of Natural Selection", nor
his "Principle of Finality".
"..Basically, he now admits that almost the entire edifice of
evolutionary theory is true: evolution, natural selection, common
ancestry...."
Quote Darwin:
"... If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life at once, the
fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural
selection...."
What was Darwin's intent with "...through natural selection". How do
you relate "Theory of Evolution" with "natural Selection"?
> With your idea that we should only care about "formal" definitions
> made by original authors? Definitely disagree.
A formal theory such as Theory of Relativity needs a formal author.
The phrase "Theory of Relativity" didn't invent itself and if say
Theory of Evolution you had better give me your theory. So I ask again
what is the Theory of Evolution? Darwin never gave a theory he just
wrote down a phrase "Theory of Evolution" and didn't tell us what was
his pragmatics with Natural Selection. What did he mean by the phrase
"Natural Selection"?
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A formal theory such as Theory of Relativity needs a formal author.
actually, it doesn't. quantum mechanics has no 'formal author'.
einstein was certainly a founder. so was planck. so was heisenberg,
schrodinger, etc.
so you're simply wrong about that...once again.
>The phrase "Theory of Relativity" didn't invent itself and if say
>Theory of Evolution you had better give me your theory. So I ask again
>what is the Theory of Evolution? Darwin never gave a theory he just
>wrote down a phrase "Theory of Evolution" and didn't tell us what was
>his pragmatics with Natural Selection. What did he mean by the phrase
>"Natural Selection"?
>
no one knows what your neologism 'pragmatics' is. for a 10th grader's
argument your strongest opponent in this argument is yourself.
backspace
Pragmatics(Intent) ?
Ernest Major
wf...@comcast.net writes
It's not his neologism, but he's misusing it. Pragmatics is
1) the study of those aspects of language that cannot be considered in
isolation from its use.
2) the study of the relation between symbols and those who use them
[Collins English Dictionary]
He's attempting to extend the meaning to cover what is studied (a common
occurrence with words denoting fields of study, even if not commonly
reflected in dictionaries - compare the use of the term semantics, or
the terms biology, geology, chemistry and physics), but neglecting that
pragmatics relate to usage, not to original usage. He might be
marginally less wrong if he went on about semantics rather than
pragmatics.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
<mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Missed that one. Thanks.
Ron Okimoto
Cheezits
> On Jun 17, 7:41 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>> >has anybody actually managed to figure out
>> > according to whom is the phrase "reproductive success"
>> In the context of natural selection? It's according to its usage by
>> modern evolutionary biologists.
> Like Jerry Coyne commenting on fellow language terrorist Behe's new
> book
Language terrorist? What languaged and who did the terroristing?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
backspace
> In message <hvic73tdd3mkg7oung3l67ls7gjhl36...@4ax.com>,
> w...@comcast.net writes
But this is because Jerry Coyne reviewing fellow language terrorist
Behe's book explicity stated Darwin Natural Selection or Natural
Selection according to Darwin. If only he would show us where exactly
in OriginSpecies does Darwin's phrase "Natural Selection" have a
bearing on what is his intent. We don't know what Darwin's pragmatics
was with Natural Selection and since Coyne is using Darwin's phrase
neither do we know what his intent is.
And until they do neither is Darwin, Behe, Ken Ham or Coyne even wrong
when using the phrase Natural Selection.
Ken Ham says "We believe in Natural Selection", but he never said what
was his intent with Natural Selection.
But you still haven't answered my question:
Do you agree with Perry Marshall that a sentence must have Semantics,
Grammar, Syntax and Intent(pragmatics)
to be a meaningful sentence?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3dce2afb3339cfc2/c5d0c7e1fa95611b#c5d0c7e1fa95611b
Essentially what we are dealing with in every single article either
defending or attacking "evolution" are a whole bunch of statements
that has Semantics, Grammar and Syntax but no Intent no pragmatics.
Which is why we all
Creationists, ID, Evolutionists have become mentally ill in a sense.
John Harshman
No he didn't. Darwin explained the term "natural selection" quite
completely in his book. If you would just read it instead of searching
it for individual words perhaps you would learn this.
> Is this what
> Coyne means that those that survived survived and those that didn't,
> didn't because they are dead?
No. That's not what he meant.
> What is your intent Coyne because nobody
> knows what was Darwin's intent with "Theory of Natural Selection", nor
> his "Principle of Finality".
Yes we do. We all know what Darwin meant by "natural selection" except
you. And the "principle of finality", as even the bit you quoted would
make clear to anyone capable of reading, was not Darwin's, and he did
not subscribe to it.
> "..Basically, he now admits that almost the entire edifice of
> evolutionary theory is true: evolution, natural selection, common
> ancestry...."
> Quote Darwin:
> "... If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
> have really started into life at once, the
> fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural
> selection...."
>
> What was Darwin's intent with "...through natural selection". How do
> you relate "Theory of Evolution" with "natural Selection"?
Back where we started. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution,
responsible for all the parts we find most interesting, i.e. the
adaptive bits.
>>With your idea that we should only care about "formal" definitions
>>made by original authors? Definitely disagree.
>
> A formal theory such as Theory of Relativity needs a formal author.
> The phrase "Theory of Relativity" didn't invent itself and if say
> Theory of Evolution you had better give me your theory. So I ask again
> what is the Theory of Evolution? Darwin never gave a theory he just
> wrote down a phrase "Theory of Evolution" and didn't tell us what was
> his pragmatics with Natural Selection. What did he mean by the phrase
> "Natural Selection"?
There is no point in explaining anything to a person who judges Darwin
while never having read the Origin of Species. In that book, Darwin
explains what he means by natural selection at great length.
chris.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
And if he finds picking up a copy of _Origin_ distasteful (as many of
us might if we were discussing a purchase of Behe's blather) he could
simply go to a library and check out any decent college biology text.
I guarantee all mainstream Bio. I texts explain the concept at length,
and in simple words.
Chris
John Harshman
None of this will have any effect. He's hit on the perfect solution to
evolution: he denies that any of the writings about it have any meaning,
and so it can be ignored. All protestations to the contrary can be
ignored too. What's not clear to me is why he needs to proselytize from
his hermetically sealed world. Though it's true that the risk of
exposure to unpleasant facts is slight if he keeps his guard up.
Spider Man
When trying to explain what evolution is to someone
who doesn't know, the easiest way is to point
at the evolutionary lines of descent chart.
>
> What do you know that the people who have studied the subject don't?
>
> > of course,
> > these same people who can't prove their chart
>
> They're not trying to "prove" any chart.
Good for them, as they can't.
> > as true will use a strawman and accuse you
> > of believing in magic,
>
> If you want to believe in magic, feel free.
I don't believe in magic.
> If you want to present a
> scientific explanation for the evidence, present a scientific
> explanation for the evidence.
But you apparently have great faith in your logic as
to believe in a billion peter pans.
> But don't insist that the supernatural
> must be allowed in science when the only reason to do so is to allow
> your religious convictions to be taught as science.
Strawman. Where did I insist that?
Kermit
Einstein said something to the effect that "Science should be as easy
as possible, but not too easy". That is, explaining it can be
simplified to the extent that the explanation is simply wrong.
The chart is simply an assertion; it is not an explanation.
>
>
> > What do you know that the people who have studied the subject don't?
>
> > > of course,
> > > these same people who can't prove their chart
>
> > They're not trying to "prove" any chart.
>
> Good for them, as they can't.
It is true, however. It is a graphic representation of the nested
hierarchies of morphology, genetics, vestigial organs, etc. Science
only supports models with evidence, or tries to find refuting
evidence. ToE, for example, is so weel supported that only religious
fanatics deny it.
>
> > > as true will use a strawman and accuse you
> > > of believing in magic,
>
> > If you want to believe in magic, feel free.
>
> I don't believe in magic.
Good; there seems to be no supporting data.
>
> > If you want to present a
> > scientific explanation for the evidence, present a scientific
> > explanation for the evidence.
>
> But you apparently have great faith in your logic as
> to believe in a billion peter pans.
If by that you mean species, that's what the evidence shows.
And how does [a sprite that may have been a boy once, who is a fierce
killer, does not grow old, and does not remember well], work for you
as a metaphor for species?
>
> > But don't insist that the supernatural
> > must be allowed in science when the only reason to do so is to allow
> > your religious convictions to be taught as science.
>
> Strawman. Where did I insist that?
I inferred it. Am I wrong - is Richard wrong? Do you not want to see
Creationism taught in public schools?
Kermit
"And whom did you kill today?" asked Wendy. "Oh, I never remember them
after I kill them," replied Peter.
mel turner
>> >has anybody actually managed to figure out
>> > according to whom is the phrase "reproductive success"
>> In the context of natural selection? It's according to its usage by
>> modern evolutionary biologists.
> Like Jerry Coyne commenting on fellow language terrorist Behe's new
> book
Now there's a sentence where some clarification is needed. What
exactly is a "language terrorist"? When you say Behe is a "fellow
language terrorist", do you mean he's a fellow "terrorist" of Coyne,
or a fellow terrorist of yours, or one of mine, or of someone else?
> ".. In that book, Behe updated an old creationist chestnut: the
> assertion that some aspects of life could not have evolved by means of
> natural selection, because that evolution would have required
> untenable steps...."
> What is Coyne's intent wth NS?
What's your intent with "intent"? Why is "natural selection"
problematic to you, but not the rest of Coyne's sentence fragment?
Gee, what does he mean by "old creationist chestnut"? What are
"aspects of life" and "untenable steps", and in what sense does he
use "required"? And what does "book" mean, and who formally defined
it?
> "....Such features, said Behe, are "irreducibly complex": their
> evolution supposedly cannot be reduced to a sequential series of
> adaptive steps, as required by Darwinian natural selection......"
> What is Coyne's intent wth NS?
What's your intent with "Coyne's intent"?
> "...Well, scientists already knew that "irreducibly complex" features
> can indeed be explained by natural selection...."
> What is Coyne's intent wth NS?
Maybe to refer to the process of natural selection? Naah, too
simple, there has to be more to it.
So, when you say "what is", what exactly do you meant by "is"?
> "....This, in fact, is what Darwin's theory of natural selection did
> to the earlier idea that organisms were designed by a Creator...."
> Darwin used the phrase Theory of Natural Selection 36 times
And the number of times he used a phrase is important why?
>and said
> that it is Survivial of the Fittest.
No, he didn't, and it isn't.
>Is this what
> Coyne means that those that survived survived and those that didn't,
> didn't because they are dead?
Nope. It means nothing of the sort, as you've already been informed.
Repeatedly. What's the point of your asking these questions if you're
going to ignore the answers?
>What is your intent Coyne because nobody
> knows what was Darwin's intent with "Theory of Natural Selection",
You may mean, everybody knows but you. You really should be speaking
for yourself alone. Nearly everyone else seems to know, and so might
you if you didn't ignore all the explanations you'd already been
given.
>nor
> his "Principle of Finality".
No such "principle" has anything to do with Darwin's ideas or
with modern evolutionary theory, as doubtless you've also been
told.
> "..Basically, he now admits that almost the entire edifice of
> evolutionary theory is true: evolution, natural selection, common
> ancestry...."
> Quote Darwin:
> "... If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
> have really started into life at once, the
> fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural
> selection...."
He's actually incorrect here. Even if numerous species were specially
created independently, evolution by natural selection may well still
be operating with each separate line.
> What was Darwin's intent with "...through natural selection".
His intent? Most likely to refer to natural selection.
>How do
> you relate "Theory of Evolution" with "natural Selection"?
When you say "relate", what do you mean, exactly? Who formally defined
'relate' thus? There seems to be something seriously wrong with your
whole approach to learning things. What do you suppose it is? Do you
approach all fields of knowledge this way, or is biology special?
>> With your idea that we should only care about "formal" definitions
>> made by original authors? Definitely disagree.
> A formal theory such as Theory of Relativity needs a formal author.
No, it doesn't. It could have been worked on by a committee, or
emerged gradually over generations of workers in different labs in
different countries, or could have been left on a scientist's
doorstep by fairies or chipmunks or whatever.
> The phrase "Theory of Relativity" didn't invent itself
How does it matter who invented it, so long as it was invented?
>and if say
> Theory of Evolution you had better give me your theory.
And haven't we already in past posts?
>So I ask again
> what is the Theory of Evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
>Darwin never gave a theory
Sure he did, and many others have developed it much further. Maybe try
actually reading the book instead of merely counting phrases.
>he just
> wrote down a phrase "Theory of Evolution" and didn't tell us what was
> his pragmatics with Natural Selection.
Have you told us yet what you think "pragmatics" means? Where does
that usage come from? Who defined it formally? Does it have any
"pragmatics" of its own?
>What did he mean by the phrase
> "Natural Selection"?
That too has been explained to you over and over. You'll find a long
explanation in much of that book where you've been counting phrases.
cheers
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sure but would you now please give me the theory as to why allele
>frequencies change without telling me it changes. I know it changes,
You know it changes? You mean that species DO change over time? How do
you explain it?
Most of the rest of us think something like this:
Life forms are born (or begin in some way), reproduce (sometimes) and
die.
Some don't reproduce at all. They may die before they get the chance
to, most often when they are very young. Others may have lost the
head-butting contest or been unable to attract a mate for other
reasons. None of these pass on their genes at all.
Of those that reproduce, some have more offspring than others. All
that reproduce pass on their genes, but those that die after he first
litter produce fewer than those that die after the second, and so on.
Among males those that fertilize the most females pass on more of
their genetic makeup than those that fertilize fewer.
And the cycle repeats. The offspring of the last generation may or may
not make it to reproduce and may reproduce in varying numbers.
So are all those things random? Or is there sometimes a pattern
involved? Sometimes there's a pattern.
The head-butters provide a good example, I think. Genes that produce
traits that make for a better butting "athlete" are more likely to be
passed on. Stronger, longer, thicker horns and antlers, stronger back
legs, greater running speed, better eyesight, coordination, more
aggressive "personality", thicker skull; all these things might be
involved. But the concept is clear, right? Those males that win, pass
on their genes. Those that lose, don't.
Now here and there an animal might win by sheer luck, I suppose. The
opponent slips on a rock, takes a bribe, whatever. But most of the
time those with the better genetic complement win. Over the
generations those genes increase in frequency in the population.
Eventually thick foreheads become the norm.
So, you may ask, why aren't their skulls a foot thick by now? Because
head-butting isn't the only factor involved. Maybe the skull can
become too thick for the brain to survive, or it is too much of a
strain on the neck muscles, or maybe the females just think it's ugly.
:) Those sorts of things make our animal friend less likely to
reproduce. In modern times, maybe hunters are more likely to shoot
big-antlered prey. Over enough time this too could cause a "change in
allele frequency".
Let's take another example. Let's suppose that Global Warming is
indeed happeneing. Or, if you on't like that notion, assume instead we
are heading into an ice age. And let's take the most simplistic view
for a moment, in which the climate in a certain animal's habitat gets
significantly warmer, or colder; enough so that some of the young die
of cold or heat.
What do you suppose would tend to happen to those with thicker or
thinner fur, or more or less fat under the skin in each scenario? How
would that afect the fequency of the various alleles that have
something to do with those factors over many generations?
In short:
Organisms aren't the same
Some of what makes them different is inheritable
Some of those inheritable traits make it more likely that an organism
will survive long enough to reproduce, will actually reproduce, will
reproduce more than others and (in some cases) will be better at
protecting and providing for their vulnerable young.
The genes that produce those traits will be passed on to future
generations in greater numbers.
Over time, a greater percentage of the population will have those
genes.
Greg Guarino
Puter User
The evolutionary lines of descent chart is
a pictoral representation of evolution
and in the context of this group would
not be wrong to point to it as a good
summary of the theory of evolution.
>
> The chart is simply an assertion; it is not an explanation.
>
>
>
> > > What do you know that the people who have studied the subject don't?
>
> > > > of course,
> > > > these same people who can't prove their chart
>
> > > They're not trying to "prove" any chart.
>
> > Good for them, as they can't.
>
> It is true, however. It is a graphic representation of the nested
> hierarchies of morphology, genetics, vestigial organs, etc. Science
> only supports models with evidence, or tries to find refuting
> evidence. ToE, for example, is so weel supported that only religious
> fanatics deny it.
>
I am not a religious fanatic and and don't think the
theory of evolution with it's chart is correct.
>
>
> > > > as true will use a strawman and accuse you
> > > > of believing in magic,
>
> > > If you want to believe in magic, feel free.
>
> > I don't believe in magic.
>
> Good; there seems to be no supporting data.
>
>
>
> > > If you want to present a
> > > scientific explanation for the evidence, present a scientific
> > > explanation for the evidence.
>
> > But you apparently have great faith in your logic as
> > to believe in a billion peter pans.
>
> If by that you mean species, that's what the evidence shows.
Thank you for admitting your belief in evolution
is based on faith, as not a single fragment
of the 1 billion peter pans that would have had
to existed If man and chimp were the same
species about 5 million years ago has ever
been found.
>
> And how does [a sprite that may have been a boy once, who is a fierce
> killer, does not grow old, and does not remember well], work for you
> as a metaphor for species?
>
>
>
> > > But don't insist that the supernatural
> > > must be allowed in science when the only reason to do so is to allow
> > > your religious convictions to be taught as science.
>
> > Strawman. Where did I insist that?
>
> I inferred it. Am I wrong - is Richard wrong? Do you not want to see
> Creationism taught in public schools?
Yes, you are wrong, and I don't want some fundamentalist
christian crap idea (what you call creationism) taught
in school.
Neither do I want to see the unproven theory
of evolution taught as undisputed fact in the
schools.
Noelie S. Alito
How does a lines of descent chart depict the following
basic concepts in evolution theory:
- The distribution of heritable traits varies across
a population. (The population's genome, so to speak.)
- Some heritable traits are of greater survival and
reproductive value in a given environment than
others. Organisms which have these traits tend
to produce a proportionately greater percentage
of the next generation than others of the population
which do not have these traits. (Shorthand for this
concept: differential reproductive success)
- Many heritable traits are close to neutral with
respect to survival and reproductive in a given
environment. Their proportions in successive
generations are more likely to be affected by
statistical contingency than reproductive selection.
(Shorthand for this concept: genetic drift)
- New traits are introduced into a population's
genome via various observed forms of DNA mutation.
In a stable environment, the vast majority of these
mutations are of no positive reproductive value,
and don't take hold in the genome. In a changing
environment, mutations provide a greater possibility
of usefulness, and may propagate through the genome.
(Shorthand for this concept: genetic adaptation)
- Populations which never get crucial traits needed
to survive in a changing environment go extinct.
- Populations get split off into isolated groups,
allowing genomes to diverge in subsequent generations.
When genomes diverge enough that organisms from
descendent populations cannot have sex (exchange
genetic material), hybridize or reproduce, they
are in essence distinct populations. (Shorthand
for this concept: speciation)
Using a chart depicting the historical lines of descent
of life on earth is no more a summary of evolution theory
than showing a picture of a specific tree is a description
of how trees grow.
<snipping rest>
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 47 years."
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 18, 12:34 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Einstein said something to the effect that "Science should be as easy
> > as possible, but not too easy". That is, explaining it can be
> > simplified to the extent that the explanation is simply wrong.
>
> The evolutionary lines of descent chart is
> a pictoral representation of evolution
Nope. It's a pictorial representation of the nested hierarchy of
living organisms.
> and in the context of this group would
> not be wrong to point to it as a good
> summary of the theory of evolution.
Yes it would, because it is no more than a pictorial representation of
the nested hierarchy of living organisms. Evolutionary theory explain
*why* living organisms form a nested hierarchy.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The chart is simply an assertion; it is not an explanation.
>
> > > > What do you know that the people who have studied the subject don't?
>
> > > > > of course,
> > > > > these same people who can't prove their chart
>
> > > > They're not trying to "prove" any chart.
>
> > > Good for them, as they can't.
>
> > It is true, however. It is a graphic representation of the nested
> > hierarchies of morphology, genetics, vestigial organs, etc. Science
> > only supports models with evidence, or tries to find refuting
> > evidence. ToE, for example, is so weel supported that only religious
> > fanatics deny it.
>
> I am not a religious fanatic and and don't think the
> theory of evolution with it's chart is correct.
If you have better explanation for the evidence, feel free to offer
one. Palaeontologists spend a lot of time arguing over whose analysis
of the evidence is correct, and do so on the basis of the evidence. "I
don't think that it's correct" is not much use as an argument. You
need to tell us why you don't think it is correct, and offer evidence
to support that position.
>
>
>
> > > But you apparently have great faith in your logic as
> > > to believe in a billion peter pans.
>
> > If by that you mean species, that's what the evidence shows.
>
> Thank you for admitting your belief in evolution
> is based on faith,
Why does "that's what the evidence shows" show that his belief is
based on faith?
> as not a single fragment
> of the 1 billion peter pans that would have had
> to existed If man and chimp were the same
> species about 5 million years ago has ever
> been found.
What about all the Australopithecines and so on which have been found?
There are literally thousand of specimens. What about the genetic
evidence which shows that man and chimp are closely related?
If you don't know about the evidence, that's fine. If you want to
learn about the evidence so that you can demonstrate that the
conclusions drawn from that evidence are false, I can recommend
several excellent books on the subject which will give you the basis
on which to start building your alternative explanation.
Do you want to learn what the evidence is, or do you prefer to remain
in the dark?
>
>
>
>
> > I inferred it. Am I wrong - is Richard wrong? Do you not want to see
> > Creationism taught in public schools?
>
> Yes, you are wrong, and I don't want some fundamentalist
> christian crap idea (what you call creationism) taught
> in school.
>
> Neither do I want to see the unproven theory
> of evolution taught as undisputed fact in the
> schools.
So do you want the unproven theory of gravity taught as fact? How
about the unproven theory of gasses? The unproven theory of
electromagnetism? The unproven theory of optics?
*ALL* theories in *ALL* branches of *EVERY* science are unproven.
Science does not offer proof.
It offers *provisional* explanation for phenomena we can observe and
measure. *EVERY* theory in EVERY* branch of *EVERY* science is subject
to rejection or modification if that's what the evidence shows. That's
why the trajectory of the pioneer spacecraft is posing a problem for
the theory of gravity, as it is deviating from the predicted path.
If you are not going to teach evolutionary theory in schools because
it is "unproven", you can't teach any science at all in schools.
So are you going to stop science teaching altogether?
Or are you going to teach in biology classes the theory which is
fundamental to the science of biology? Virtually every biologist is
the world is convinced that evolutionary theory is sound, and those
who reject it do so from religious conviction, not scientific
evidence.
If you don't teach evolutionary theory, what are you going to teach?
RF
Usenet Nym
So you are claiming how evolution works *is* evolution?
Usenet Nym
> On Jun 18, 8:30 pm, Puter User <Puteru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 12:34 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Einstein said something to the effect that "Science should be as easy
> > > as possible, but not too easy". That is, explaining it can be
> > > simplified to the extent that the explanation is simply wrong.
>
> > The evolutionary lines of descent chart is
> > a pictoral representation of evolution
>
> Nope. It's a pictorial representation of the nested hierarchy of
> living organisms.
Which is a fundamental tenet of the theory
of evolution.
> > > > But you apparently have great faith in your logic as
> > > > to believe in a billion peter pans.
>
> > > If by that you mean species, that's what the evidence shows.
>
> > Thank you for admitting your belief in evolution
> > is based on faith,
>
> Why does "that's what the evidence shows" show that his belief is
> based on faith?
>
> > as not a single fragment
> > of the 1 billion peter pans that would have had
> > to existed If man and chimp were the same
> > species about 5 million years ago has ever
> > been found.
>
> What about all the Australopithecines and so on which have been found?
What about them?
Are you now claiming that that particular species is
the species of when man and chimp were allegedly
the same species?
> There are literally thousand of specimens. What about the genetic
> evidence which shows that man and chimp are closely related?
The do look similar.
>
> If you don't know about the evidence, that's fine. If you want to
> learn about the evidence so that you can demonstrate that the
> conclusions drawn from that evidence are false, I can recommend
> several excellent books on the subject which will give you the basis
> on which to start building your alternative explanation.
>
> Do you want to learn what the evidence is, or do you prefer to remain
> in the dark?
>
>
>
> > > I inferred it. Am I wrong - is Richard wrong? Do you not want to see
> > > Creationism taught in public schools?
>
> > Yes, you are wrong, and I don't want some fundamentalist
> > christian crap idea (what you call creationism) taught
> > in school.
>
> > Neither do I want to see the unproven theory
> > of evolution taught as undisputed fact in the
> > schools.
>
> So do you want the unproven theory of gravity taught as fact?
Sure
> How
> about the unproven theory of gasses?
Sure.
> The unproven theory of
> electromagnetism?
Sure.
>The unproven theory of optics?
Sure.
These are all physics and are well established.
>
> *ALL* theories in *ALL* branches of *EVERY* science are unproven.
>
> Science does not offer proof.
Yes it does.
http://cnx.org/content/m12432/latest/
"theory 1: Atomic Molecular Theory
the elements are comprised of identical atoms
all atoms of a single element have the same characteristic mass
these number and masses of these atoms do not change during a chemical
transformation
compounds consist of identical molecules formed of atoms combined in
simple whole number ratios
This theory has been proved multiple times.
>
> It offers *provisional* explanation for phenomena we can observe and
> measure. *EVERY* theory in EVERY* branch of *EVERY* science is subject
> to rejection or modification if that's what the evidence shows. That's
> why the trajectory of the pioneer spacecraft is posing a problem for
> the theory of gravity, as it is deviating from the predicted path.
>
> If you are not going to teach evolutionary theory in schools because
> it is "unproven", you can't teach any science at all in schools.
Nope. Just evolution.
>
> So are you going to stop science teaching altogether?
>
> Or are you going to teach in biology classes the theory which is
> fundamental to the science of biology?
I am confident you can teach biology without
teaching the theory of evolution as undisputed fact.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 19, 3:38 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 8:30 pm, Puter User <Puteru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 18, 12:34 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein said something to the effect that "Science should be as easy
> > > > as possible, but not too easy". That is, explaining it can be
> > > > simplified to the extent that the explanation is simply wrong.
>
> > > The evolutionary lines of descent chart is
> > > a pictoral representation of evolution
>
> > Nope. It's a pictorial representation of the nested hierarchy of
> > living organisms.
>
> Which is a fundamental tenet of the theory
> of evolution.
>
No, it's a prediction from evolutionary theory as to the nature of the
evidence we expect to find.
Do you have a better explanation for the nature of the evidence?
>
>
> > > > > But you apparently have great faith in your logic as
> > > > > to believe in a billion peter pans.
>
> > > > If by that you mean species, that's what the evidence shows.
>
> > > Thank you for admitting your belief in evolution
> > > is based on faith,
>
> > Why does "that's what the evidence shows" show that his belief is
> > based on faith?
>
> > > as not a single fragment
> > > of the 1 billion peter pans that would have had
> > > to existed If man and chimp were the same
> > > species about 5 million years ago has ever
> > > been found.
>
> > What about all the Australopithecines and so on which have been found?
>
> What about them?
> Are you now claiming that that particular species is
> the species of when man and chimp were allegedly
> the same species?
>
Man and chimp were not the same species. They share a common ancestor.
Australopithecus and the rest are closer to that common ancestor than
we are.
> > There are literally thousand of specimens. What about the genetic
> > evidence which shows that man and chimp are closely related?
>
> The do look similar.
>
That similarity is not just superficial. It exists at the most basic
level, that of genetics.
The explanation which biologists who have studied the subject accept
is that they have evolved from a common ancestor.
So what is your explanation for that similarity, and how can it be
tested?
>
>
>
>
> > If you don't know about the evidence, that's fine. If you want to
> > learn about the evidence so that you can demonstrate that the
> > conclusions drawn from that evidence are false, I can recommend
> > several excellent books on the subject which will give you the basis
> > on which to start building your alternative explanation.
>
> > Do you want to learn what the evidence is, or do you prefer to remain
> > in the dark?
>
> > > > I inferred it. Am I wrong - is Richard wrong? Do you not want to see
> > > > Creationism taught in public schools?
>
> > > Yes, you are wrong, and I don't want some fundamentalist
> > > christian crap idea (what you call creationism) taught
> > > in school.
>
> > > Neither do I want to see the unproven theory
> > > of evolution taught as undisputed fact in the
> > > schools.
>
> > So do you want the unproven theory of gravity taught as fact?
>
> Sure
>
Why the unproven theory of gravity but not the unproven theory of
evolution?
> > How
> > about the unproven theory of gasses?
>
> Sure.
Why the unproven theory of gases but not the unproven theory of
evolution?
>
> > The unproven theory of
> > electromagnetism?
>
> Sure.
Why the unproven theory of electromagnetism but not the unproven
theory of evolution?
>
> >The unproven theory of optics?
>
> Sure.
>
> These are all physics and are well established.
>
So is evolutionary theory in biology. Ask any biologist.
>
>
> > *ALL* theories in *ALL* branches of *EVERY* science are unproven.
>
> > Science does not offer proof.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> http://cnx.org/content/m12432/latest/
>
That web page does not purport to offer proof.
> "theory 1: Atomic Molecular Theory
> the elements are comprised of identical atoms
> all atoms of a single element have the same characteristic mass
> these number and masses of these atoms do not change during a chemical
> transformation
> compounds consist of identical molecules formed of atoms combined in
> simple whole number ratios
>
> This theory has been proved multiple times.
>
No it hasn't. It is supported by evidence, but is not proven.
Science does not offer proof.
You need to learn that if you are to understand the nature of science.
>
>
> > It offers *provisional* explanation for phenomena we can observe and
> > measure. *EVERY* theory in EVERY* branch of *EVERY* science is subject
> > to rejection or modification if that's what the evidence shows. That's
> > why the trajectory of the pioneer spacecraft is posing a problem for
> > the theory of gravity, as it is deviating from the predicted path.
>
> > If you are not going to teach evolutionary theory in schools because
> > it is "unproven", you can't teach any science at all in schools.
>
> Nope. Just evolution.
>
You have not explained what is different about evolutionary science.
The basis on which you seek to reject would cause to reject all
science.
>
>
> > So are you going to stop science teaching altogether?
>
> > Or are you going to teach in biology classes the theory which is
> > fundamental to the science of biology?
>
> I am confident you can teach biology without
> teaching the theory of evolution as undisputed fact.
As you demonstrate little knowledge of science in general and
biological science in particular, your confidence is utterly
irrelevant.
Virtually every biologist is the world is convinced that evolutionary
theory is sound, and those who reject it do so from religious
conviction, not scientific evidence.
If you don't teach evolutionary theory, what are you going to teach?
Why not address this question?
I know you won't, of course, because as a creationist you are invested
in a dishonest, intellectually and morally bankrupt system. One of the
reasons why I post here is to expose that dishonesty.
So why not astonish us all and give an honest, informed and logically
coherent response?
RF
Usenet Nym
> On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Usenet Nym <Usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > But you apparently have great faith in your logic as
> > > > > > to believe in a billion peter pans.
>
> > > > > If by that you mean species, that's what the evidence shows.
>
> > > > Thank you for admitting your belief in evolution
> > > > is based on faith,
>
> > > Why does "that's what the evidence shows" show that his belief is
> > > based on faith?
>
> > > > as not a single fragment
> > > > of the 1 billion peter pans that would have had
> > > > to existed If man and chimp were the same
> > > > species about 5 million years ago has ever
> > > > been found.
>
> > > What about all the Australopithecines and so on which have been found?
>
> > What about them?
> > Are you now claiming that that particular species is
> > the species of when man and chimp were allegedly
> > the same species?
>
> Man and chimp were not the same species. They share a common ancestor.
So man and chimp are purported to be
the same species in the past.
The lines of descent chart will show that
> Australopithecus and the rest are closer to that common ancestor than
> we are.
Yeah, it is older.
>
> > > There are literally thousand of specimens. What about the genetic
> > > evidence which shows that man and chimp are closely related?
>
> > The do look similar.
>
> That similarity is not just superficial. It exists at the most basic
> level, that of genetics.
> The explanation which biologists who have studied the subject accept
> is that they have evolved from a common ancestor.
Or, because they look similar, the genetics are
similar.
>
> So what is your explanation for that similarity, and how can it be
> tested?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If you don't know about the evidence, that's fine. If you want to
> > > learn about the evidence so that you can demonstrate that the
> > > conclusions drawn from that evidence are false, I can recommend
> > > several excellent books on the subject which will give you the basis
> > > on which to start building your alternative explanation.
>
> > > Do you want to learn what the evidence is, or do you prefer to remain
> > > in the dark?
>
> > > > > I inferred it. Am I wrong - is Richard wrong? Do you not want to see
> > > > > Creationism taught in public schools?
>
> > > > Yes, you are wrong, and I don't want some fundamentalist
> > > > christian crap idea (what you call creationism) taught
> > > > in school.
>
> > > > Neither do I want to see the unproven theory
> > > > of evolution taught as undisputed fact in the
> > > > schools.
>
> > > So do you want the unproven theory of gravity taught as fact?
>
> > Sure
>
> Why the unproven theory of gravity but not the unproven theory of
> evolution?
Drop a ten ton rock on your head and go ahead
and doubt gravity.
>
> > > How
> > > about the unproven theory of gasses?
>
> > Sure.
>
> Why the unproven theory of gases but not the unproven theory of
> evolution?
>
Inhale some argon/ CO2 mix for an hour and doubt gases.
>
>
> > > The unproven theory of
> > > electromagnetism?
>
> > Sure.
>
> Why the unproven theory of electromagnetism but not the unproven
> theory of evolution?
>
Strap yourself up into the electric chair and
throw the switch and doubt
electrons exist.
>
>
> > >The unproven theory of optics?
>
> > Sure.
>
> > These are all physics and are well established.
>
> So is evolutionary theory in biology. Ask any biologist.
>
They have been brainwashed to accept it as
undisputed fact.
>
>
> > > *ALL* theories in *ALL* branches of *EVERY* science are unproven.
>
> > > Science does not offer proof.
>
> > Yes it does.
>
> >http://cnx.org/content/m12432/latest/
>
> That web page does not purport to offer proof.
>
> > "theory 1: Atomic Molecular Theory
> > the elements are comprised of identical atoms
> > all atoms of a single element have the same characteristic mass
> > these number and masses of these atoms do not change during a chemical
> > transformation
> > compounds consist of identical molecules formed of atoms combined in
> > simple whole number ratios
>
> > This theory has been proved multiple times.
>
> No it hasn't. It is supported by evidence, but is not proven.
>
> Science does not offer proof.
Yes, it does. What are the bond angles and bond
lengths of water, methane, and ammonia?
They have been experimentally verified countless
times and are proven.
>
> You need to learn that if you are to understand the nature of science.
>
>
>
> > > It offers *provisional* explanation for phenomena we can observe and
> > > measure. *EVERY* theory in EVERY* branch of *EVERY* science is subject
> > > to rejection or modification if that's what the evidence shows. That's
> > > why the trajectory of the pioneer spacecraft is posing a problem for
> > > the theory of gravity, as it is deviating from the predicted path.
>
> > > If you are not going to teach evolutionary theory in schools because
> > > it is "unproven", you can't teach any science at all in schools.
>
> > Nope. Just evolution.
>
> You have not explained what is different about evolutionary science.
> The basis on which you seek to reject would cause to reject all
> science.
>
Sorry, you still don't get it.
I am confining my condemnation to
JUST EVOLUTION.
The conjectural, speculative lines of descent chart
is beyond the scope of proof, and rests upon
logic, and your faith in it.
>
>
> > > So are you going to stop science teaching altogether?
>
> > > Or are you going to teach in biology classes the theory which is
> > > fundamental to the science of biology?
>
> > I am confident you can teach biology without
> > teaching the theory of evolution as undisputed fact.
>
> As you demonstrate little knowledge of science in general and
> biological science in particular, your confidence is utterly
> irrelevant.
Insulting troll.
>
> Virtually every biologist is the world is convinced that evolutionary
> theory is sound, and those who reject it do so from religious
> conviction, not scientific evidence.
>
> If you don't teach evolutionary theory, what are you going to teach?
>
> Why not address this question?
>
> I know you won't, of course, because as a creationist you are invested
> in a dishonest, intellectually and morally bankrupt system. One of the
> reasons why I post here is to expose that dishonesty.
Troll, I am not a creationist, darwin's little cultist.
I am advocating placing disclaimers in the textbooks.
>
> So why not astonish us all and give an honest, informed and logically
> coherent response?
>
> RF- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -