Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwin's pragmatics?
backspace
got from Herbert Spencer in his 6th edition.
Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
Chris Colby: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
John Wilkins: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e?tvc=1
"... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
interpretable...."
John Wilkins wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
"Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
*is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
John Harshman: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d891d6b4b9/85cc1b8964d9e435#85cc1b8964d9e435
"... It's just an intended synonym for natural selection. ...."
We have here five versions: Darwin, Wilkins1, Wilkins2, Colby and
Harshman each with their own pragmatics.
Colby says SF is misleading. Wilkins that it is shorthand for complex
math and the other post that it "...turns the whole thing into a
tautology", Harshman that SF is a synonym for Natural Selection. Fom
Darwin I can't deduce his pragmatics and he is dead so we can't ask
him.
Survival of the fittest means what? That depends on your pragmatics.
If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
tautological statements in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
Kermit
> Darwin used the phrase Survival of the Fittest 16 times a phrase he
> got from Herbert Spencer in his 6th edition.
>
> Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
> variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
> order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
> expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
> Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
> have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
> and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
> of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
> But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
> ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
> efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
>
> Chris Colby:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
> The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
> natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
>
> "... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
> The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
> interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
> For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
> definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
> interpretable...."
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> "Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
> the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
> changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
> implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
> problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
> tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
> *is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
> connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
> unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
> biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
> thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
> result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
>
> "... It's just an intended synonym for natural selection. ...."
>
> We have here five versions: Darwin, Wilkins1, Wilkins2, Colby and
> Harshman each with their own pragmatics.
>
> Colby says SF is misleading. Wilkins that it is shorthand for complex
> math and the other post that it "...turns the whole thing into a
> tautology", Harshman that SF is a synonym for Natural Selection. Fom
> Darwin I can't deduce his pragmatics and he is dead so we can't ask
> him.
>
> Survival of the fittest means what?
See the descriptions and comments you quoted above. They are all
pretty good.
> That depends on your pragmatics.
"Pragmatics: noun; the study of language use"
> If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
> tautological statements
Even though generals are generally educated in all manners of things,
they probably don't think much about tautologies in the heat of
battle.
> in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
> it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
> we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
Perhaps the trouble lies in translation. What is your native tongue?
Kermit
Lorentz
> math and the other post that it "...turns the whole thing into a
> tautology", Harshman that SF is a synonym for Natural Selection. Fom
> Darwin I can't deduce his pragmatics and he is dead so we can't ask
> him.
phrase. I think his book, "The Ascent of Man," has an interesting
qualifier in it. In this book, he distinguishes between "Natural
Selection" and "Sexual Selection." He says that upon reflection, he
has come to the conclusion that "sexual selection" is as important as
"natural selection." In my opinion, his natural selection is
specifically the lethal types of selection. Therefore, he really is
using the words "Natural Selection" to specify "Survival of the
Fittest." Colby is saying that "Survival of the Fittest" is less
ambiguous, because it implies lethality. I think most writers now use
"Natural Selection" to include the nonlethal types of selection,
including what Darwin called "sexual selection." So in that narrow
sense you are right. Words do "evolve" in usage. The phrase has
expanded in meaning. However, I don't think the pragmatics are nearly
as messed up as you say.
My hypothesis that you don't like math has just gotten more
evidence. Calling something a "shorthand for math" doesn't change the
concept. It just means that the meaning is sometimes clearer in
equation form. Sometimes, the way the word is used in a mathematics
problem often culls the many different definitions used in day to day
speech.
If you would read some of the literature, you would see that
parts of evolution are modelled mathematically. In fact, you show your
confusion the most when you refer to mathematical words. The word
"random" really does have an exact meaning. Dawkins wrote a computer
program that simulates "natural selection." It is not nearly an exact
model. But the program really uses a "random number generator." The
meaning of random in his model is 100% clear. There is no problem with
pragmatics when referring to his program. The mathematical meaning and
the common meaning of random have a large overlap. That is why other
people aren't confused and you are.
I suggest that you write a computer program. And in it, use a
random number generator. Then tell us how ambiguous the word "random"
really is.
>
> Survival of the fittest means what? That depends on your pragmatics.
The pragmatics vary, but not much. You should look at the
history of the word "heat" and "temperature."
> If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
> tautological statements in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
> it against him.
Exactly. But we know that some armies have a better chance of
surviving than others. That is "natural selection." But is luck
involved? That is called chance.
Inez
> got from Herbert Spencer in his 6th edition.
>
> Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
> variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
> order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
> expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
> Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
> have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
> and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
> of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
> But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
> ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
> efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
>
> Chris Colby:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
> The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
> natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
>
> "... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
> The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
> interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
> For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
> definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
> interpretable...."
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> "Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
> the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
> changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
> implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
> problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
> tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
> *is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
> connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
> unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
> biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
> thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
> result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
>
> "... It's just an intended synonym for natural selection. ...."
>
> We have here five versions: Darwin, Wilkins1, Wilkins2, Colby and
> Harshman each with their own pragmatics.
We really don't though. Darwin, Colby and Harshman all said it was a
synonym for "Natural Selection" and Wilkins2 implies as much.
Wilkins1 merely states that it can be expressed mathmatically, which
doesn't really contradict any of the other statements. So what we
have is a person (also known as backspace) who is insisting on being
confused for no obvious reason.
John Harshman
What is in your pragmatics? What makes you think that the people quoted
here (including me) have any different views on the meaning of "survival
of the fittest"? And why are you harping on this one phrase as if the
rest of Darwin's book didn't exist?
<<<4
Slimebot McGoo
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[snip usual moronic nonsense from UC]
After all this time and noise, you still don't know what "pragmatics"
or "tautology" mean, and don't know anything about evolution. You're
simply stupid and unteachable, aren't you?
Mcgoo
backspace
> We really don't though. Darwin, Colby and Harshman all said it was a
> synonym for "Natural Selection" and Wilkins2 implies as much.
> Wilkins1 merely states that it can be expressed mathmatically, which
> doesn't really contradict any of the other statements. So what we
> have is a person (also known as backspace) who is insisting on being
> confused for no obvious reason.
John Harsman's intent or pragmatics with "synonym" is that SF is
valid. Chris Colby says it is "misleading".
Read the Colby quote again, you misread it. Read what he actually
wrote not what you want him write and you will see that Chris Colby
and John Harsman are taking opposite views. Nobody including Wilkins
himself has any idea just what he was his intent with his two quotes.
I don't wish to be unkind but my hunch is that he writing complete
nonsense.
Is Survival of the Fittest a tautology as used by Darwin? We will have
to interview Darwin first to ask him what was his intent, until then
we really don't know. And if we don't know why are we talking about
nonsense like "fitness landscapes" a phrase used by Behe in his new
book which even Wikipedia says is "not defined".... the language
madness gets worse and worse... SurvFittest means what? It means
nothing without intent or pragmatics - would anybody beg to differ?
Ernest Major
<olde...@youth.inc> writes
feedback/Peter Pan/Spider Man/Puter User/Usenet Nym) are all trolls, but
they don't appear to be the same troll.
--
alias Ernest Major
Inez
> On Jun 21, 6:40 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We really don't though. Darwin, Colby and Harshman all said it was a
> > synonym for "Natural Selection" and Wilkins2 implies as much.
> > Wilkins1 merely states that it can be expressed mathmatically, which
> > doesn't really contradict any of the other statements. So what we
> > have is a person (also known as backspace) who is insisting on being
> > confused for no obvious reason.
>
> John Harsman's intent or pragmatics with "synonym" is that SF is
> valid. Chris Colby says it is "misleading".
> Read the Colby quote again, you misread it. Read what he actually
> wrote not what you want him write and you will see that Chris Colby
> and John Harsman are taking opposite views.
You're picking at nits that require an electron microscope to see. If
you enjoy this, by all means continue, but it's patently obvious
you're forcing confusion on yourself.
backspace
wrote:
> > Survival of the fittest means what? That depends on your pragmatics.
> > If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
> > tautological statements in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
> > it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
> > we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
> What is in your pragmatics? What makes you think that the people quoted
> here (including me) have any different views on the meaning of "survival
> of the fittest"?
But what is the meaning of "survival of the fittest"? What was
Mussolini's pragmatics with it as he repeated it over and over in his
speeches? Don't you understand "Survival of the fittest" is simply the
combination of four letters and has absolutely no meaning without
intent. Every single sentence we write must have intent or pragmatics.
You are using this phrase so you tell me what exactly is your intent
with Survival of the Fittest. Nextime your biology instructor starts
"naturaling" stuff ask him what is his intent. The third time you ask
him he will throw you out of the class. You see these indoctrinations
into materialism is rigged in the following manner - make sentences
with semantics, grammar and syntax but no pragmatics and then sit back
and watch the brueha as evolutionists, IDsts and Creationists all
waste their time refuting "evolution" a term that has no meaning
without intent.
For example Dave Scott calls evolution a "Godless theory". But Wells
on CNN said that:"For some evolution means change over time and I
don't know about anybody who would disagree with that defenition". So
in other words
Dave Scott has called "change over time" Godless? This is the sort of
nonsense somebody with an IQ of 180 can post because nobody seems to
get that you must have pragmatics with your sentences or they are not
even wrong.
Ofcourse we have change over time - what about the change? Who has
established that this is "evolution" what is the pragmatics by
stateing that "change over time" is evolution?
John Harshman
> On Jun 21, 6:40 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>We really don't though. Darwin, Colby and Harshman all said it was a
>>synonym for "Natural Selection" and Wilkins2 implies as much.
>>Wilkins1 merely states that it can be expressed mathmatically, which
>>doesn't really contradict any of the other statements. So what we
>>have is a person (also known as backspace) who is insisting on being
>>confused for no obvious reason.
>
>
> John Harsman's intent or pragmatics with "synonym" is that SF is
> valid. Chris Colby says it is "misleading".
Not true. I agree with Chris. It's a synonym for natural selection, but
a misleading one. This is not rocket science. These are just names for a
phenomenon that is described at greater length in the book. The names
are not the phenomenon. Some names are better than others. I like the
name "natural selection" better than "survival of the fittest", and so
do most people who have ventured an opinion.
> Read the Colby quote again, you misread it. Read what he actually
> wrote not what you want him write and you will see that Chris Colby
> and John Harsman are taking opposite views. Nobody including Wilkins
> himself has any idea just what he was his intent with his two quotes.
> I don't wish to be unkind but my hunch is that he writing complete
> nonsense.
It's my hunch that *you* are the one writing a complete nonsense.
> Is Survival of the Fittest a tautology as used by Darwin?
No. It's just a term. A tautology is a logical syllogism. If that single
phrase were all Darwin had written and if he had later defined "the
fittest" as "those that survive", you would have a point. But it wasn't,
and he didn't, so you don't.
> We will have
> to interview Darwin first to ask him what was his intent, until then
> we really don't know.
Unless, I repeat, we are capable of reading clear English and use that
capability to read the damn book.
> And if we don't know why are we talking about
> nonsense like "fitness landscapes" a phrase used by Behe in his new
> book which even Wikipedia says is "not defined".... the language
> madness gets worse and worse... SurvFittest means what? It means
> nothing without intent or pragmatics - would anybody beg to differ?
What was your intent and pragmatics in writing the above nonsense?
"Fitness landscape" is defined, by the way. It's simply a surface in
which one dimension is fitness and other dimensions characterize
genotypes, such that the points in genotype x fitness space make up the
surface. Populations can move about that surface (through mutation and
recombination), and selection would cause them to move uphill toward the
nearest fitness peak.
I don't know why anyone bothers, since you aren't listening anyway.
<<<8
John Harshman
> On Jun 21, 7:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>Survival of the fittest means what? That depends on your pragmatics.
>>>If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
>>>tautological statements in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
>>>it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
>>>we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
>
>
>>What is in your pragmatics? What makes you think that the people quoted
>>here (including me) have any different views on the meaning of "survival
>>of the fittest"?
>
>
> But what is the meaning of "survival of the fittest"? What was
> Mussolini's pragmatics with it as he repeated it over and over in his
> speeches? Don't you understand "Survival of the fittest" is simply the
> combination of four letters and has absolutely no meaning without
> intent. Every single sentence we write must have intent or pragmatics.
> You are using this phrase so you tell me what exactly is your intent
> with Survival of the Fittest. Nextime your biology instructor starts
> "naturaling" stuff ask him what is his intent.
Nobody has ever "naturaled" anything in my presence, except you. What is
your intent?
> The third time you ask
> him he will throw you out of the class.
He probably would, since I would be a disruptive idiot. I can see how
you would have that effect on entirely reasonable people.
> You see these indoctrinations
> into materialism is rigged in the following manner - make sentences
> with semantics, grammar and syntax but no pragmatics and then sit back
> and watch the brueha as evolutionists, IDsts and Creationists all
> waste their time refuting "evolution" a term that has no meaning
> without intent.
But no term has meaning without intent. Intent can be discovered fairly
easily by reading or listening. This is called "communication". You
reject the very notion of communication. I'm starting to think you have
serious mental problems.
> For example Dave Scott calls evolution a "Godless theory". But Wells
> on CNN said that:"For some evolution means change over time and I
> don't know about anybody who would disagree with that defenition". So
> in other words Dave Scott has called "change over time" Godless?
> This is the sort of nonsense somebody with an IQ of 180 can post
> because nobody seems to get that you must have pragmatics with your
> sentences or they are not even wrong. Ofcourse we have change over
> time - what about the change? Who has established that this is
> "evolution" what is the pragmatics by stateing that "change over
> time" is evolution?
Who is Dave Scott, and why should I care what he thinks? I know who
Jonathan Wells is, and I hardly care what he thinks, since he is both
stupid and dishonest. He's defining evolution in purposely vague terms
so as to deprive it of meaning. That's a debating tactic. This has
nothing to do with real evolutionary biology. And evolutionary
biologists are not responsible for the dumb things that creationists say.
You want "pragmatics"? Here: humans and chimpanzees are descended from a
common ancestor. Their differences are due to the accumulation of
mutations fixed in their respective lineages after separation from each
other. That's evolution.
<<<13
Noelie S. Alito
:
>>
>> Survival of the fittest means what?
>
> See the descriptions and comments you quoted above. They are all
> pretty good.
>
>> That depends on your pragmatics.
>
> "Pragmatics: noun; the study of language use"
>
>> If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
>> tautological statements
>
> Even though generals are generally educated in all manners of things,
> they probably don't think much about tautologies in the heat of
> battle.
>
>> in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
>> it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
>> we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
>
> Perhaps the trouble lies in translation. What is your native tongue?
Afrikaans?
swedish...@googlemail.com
> Darwin used the phrase Survival of the Fittest 16 times a phrase he
> got from Herbert Spencer in his 6th edition.
>
> Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
> variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
> order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
> expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
> Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
> have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
> and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
> of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
> But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
> ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
> efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
>
> Chris Colby:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
> The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
> natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
>
> "... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
> The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
> interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
> For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
> definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
> interpretable...."
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> "Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
> the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
> changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
> implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
> problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
> tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
> *is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
> connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
> unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
> biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
> thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
> result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
>
> "... It's just an intended synonym for natural selection. ...."
>
> We have here five versions: Darwin, Wilkins1, Wilkins2, Colby and
> Harshman each with their own pragmatics.
>
> Colby says SF is misleading. Wilkins that it is shorthand for complex
> math and the other post that it "...turns the whole thing into a
> tautology", Harshman that SF is a synonym for Natural Selection. Fom
> Darwin I can't deduce his pragmatics and he is dead so we can't ask
> him.
>
> Survival of the fittest means what? That depends on your pragmatics.
> If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
> tautological statements in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
> it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
> we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
It's the same argument again. And it wasn't a very good one last time.
No one has to define their "pragmatics" as you wish to call them for
their words to have meaning, there are many other ways we can infer
the author's intent. Context, for example being the most obvious and
crucial one.
We understand what Darwin meant by natural selection and so too does
every scientist in the world because of how he used the word. This
understanding can be observed in the mass of literature that makes
reference to the term. Or are you saying that thousands of scientists
the world over are discussing a topic without having any idea what the
terms they are using mean?
Greg Guarino
----------------------------------
One hundred and fifty years ago Charles Darwin described his theories
in a book of five hundred pages,
Yet his intent is unclear.
Said book would surely be on anyone's list of the most influential
books in the history of mankind. Even those who believe that inlfuence
is for ill would agree.
Yet no one knows what Darwin meant.
For 150 years biologists have studied and used the principles set
forth by Darwin, expanding on and refining them.
...without actually understanding what those principles are.
And finally, that the millions of people who have actually read the
Origin and thought they understood its meaning are mistaken.
But you, who have not read it, are not.
----------------------------------
Greg Guarino
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Survival of the fittest means what? That depends on your pragmatics.
>If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
>tautological statements in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
>it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
>we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
well it looks to me like you think the phrase should have a meaning,
and are disappointed when told it doesnt
seems to trash your argument...
and no one knows what 'pragmatics' are...
wf...@comcast.net
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Not true. I agree with Chris. It's a synonym for natural selection, but
>a misleading one. This is not rocket science.
remember your audience. if your name is 'backspace' this IS rocket
science...
Grandbank
wrote:
>
>
> Who is Dave Scott, and why should I care what he thinks?
I believe he is the person in charge of misdirection and banning on
Dembski's blog.
You shouldn't care what he thinks.
KP
JQ
>
> But what is the meaning of "survival of the fittest"?
<Ignorant whinging snipped>
'Survival of the fittest' means that genes which equip their hosts
with a better ability to survive and reproduce over a number of
generations will on average tend to prevail over genes that aren't as
good at it.
Now shut up.
backspace
> 'Survival of the fittest' means that genes which equip their hosts
> with a better ability to survive and reproduce over a number of
> generations will on average tend to prevail over genes that aren't as
> good at it.
Thus says you, this is the JQ theory of Evolution. Why should I
believe you and not the Chris Colby Theory of Evolution? And if it is
not you then who are you quoting that established your view. Darwin
didn't know about genes, what was his pragmatics with SurFittets and
what is your pragmatics or intent.
And the fascinating thing is that the more I point out that Darwin
didn't used Random mutations, the phrase was only coined in 1910 the
more Harvard Psycology department says that Darwin said Random
mutations. When will this lie ever be exposed and it be made known to
everybody using RM that it is somebody else's theory - not Darwin? I
have gone into Darwin's pragmatics with "chance" and showed how he
kept it a big surprise for everybody that after using it probably 50
times throughout the book near the end he states ".... it is an
incorrect expression..." Couldn't he just have said that from the
start and couldn't he just have defined what on earth his intent was
with "Natural Selection"? He naturals everything, natural this and
natural that because he himself had no idea what exactly was the point
he was trying to make and how could he, he couldn't specify the
problem. And neither can anybody today using the assumption that the
answer must fit within their materialist framework.
JQ
Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed that you were genuinely confused, I didn't
realise you were just trying to confuse lurkers with meaningless
rhetoric. For the benefit of said lurkers who may be confused by your
incoherent ranting I will highlight that language is merely a
communication tool. Since you seem to have no point whatsoever I won't
even bother looking up your references and simply state that if your
claim is true and these people are referring to different things, that
is their right as long as they define their meanings in the work. The
definition I have given above is a watered-down version of the general
modern usage, but taking into account your apparent limited
intellectual scope backspace you can always just ignore the process
and effects bit and say that natural selection is the tendency for
creatures more suited to their environment to be better at surviving
and reproducing. Then you can pretend not to understand, contrast my
explanation with random obscure references or the way other people on
this forum us the term, try to make it sound like our explanations
aren't compatable and thus conclude that we're all confused about the
subject. Hell, you could even quote my two definitions, pretend not to
understand that the latter is a simplification of the former, and post
about how confused I am. That might give you something to do while
you're waiting for sesame street to come on.
backspace
> We understand what Darwin meant by natural selection and so too does
> every scientist in the world because of how he used the word.
Well don't keep it a secret tell us what exactly was Darwin's intent
with Natural Selection by quoting OriginSpecies
which you can download from Gutenbergpress.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Why don't you find out what he meant by reading it for yourself?
RF
swedish...@googlemail.com
You have misunderstood/ignored what I wrote. Origin of Species in its
entirety and all the subsequent literature is where we get our meaning
from (pragmatics as you wish to call it).
Language works by someone using words to convey an intent. If the
person they are speaking to understands them then that is great. If
they do not, then they ask for clarification from the speaker. You
will notice how there is no one else on this forum asking for
clarification of the meaning of natural selection. You are the only
person that seems not to understand the term. Therefore, one could
argue, the problem lies with you and not Darwin.
I will ask again, since you did not answer the question last time: do
you think that the thousands of scientists who are discussing this
topic are actually ignorant of the meaning of the term?
Ye Old One
>Survival of the fittest means what?
That, in any environment, those organisms best suited to the
environment stand the best chance of survival and therefore
procreation.
--
Bob.
backspace
> You have misunderstood/ignored what I wrote. Origin of Species in its
> entirety and all the subsequent literature is where we get our meaning
> from (pragmatics as you wish to call it).
anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
world wars and Stalins Gulags.
> Language works by someone using words to convey an intent. If the
> person they are speaking to understands them then that is great. If
> they do not, then they ask for clarification from the speaker. You
> will notice how there is no one else on this forum asking for
> clarification of the meaning of natural selection. You are the only
> person that seems not to understand the term. Therefore, one could
> argue, the problem lies with you and not Darwin.
> I will ask again, since you did not answer the question last time: do
> you think that the thousands of scientists who are discussing this
> topic are actually ignorant of the meaning of the term?
No, because until they tell me their intent or pragmatics with Natural
Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong.
You have missed my previous posts on these issues. I am deriving my
arguments from Perry Marshall see this
thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3dce2afb3339cfc2/c5d0c7e1fa95611b#c5d0c7e1fa95611b
swedish...@googlemail.com
How do you know what Pauli meant by that? Where does he tell us his
pragmatics?
swedish...@googlemail.com
And you have missed my point that it is entirely irrelevant whether
there is a single passage in Origin of Species where Darwin defines
natural selection or not. We all know what is meant by the term
because of how it is used. Origin of Species is not a dictionary and
nor does it need to be.
> > Language works by someone using words to convey an intent. If the
> > person they are speaking to understands them then that is great. If
> > they do not, then they ask for clarification from the speaker. You
> > will notice how there is no one else on this forum asking for
> > clarification of the meaning of natural selection. You are the only
> > person that seems not to understand the term. Therefore, one could
> > argue, the problem lies with you and not Darwin.
> > I will ask again, since you did not answer the question last time: do
> > you think that the thousands of scientists who are discussing this
> > topic are actually ignorant of the meaning of the term?
>
> No, because until they tell me their intent or pragmatics with Natural
> Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong.
Please explain what you mean by saying that they are not even wrong.
Are you or are you not saying that scientists today are discussing a
topic about which they have no idea as to the meaning of the terms it
uses.
If the answer is yes, then why has no one else except you brought this
to their attention.
If the answer is no, then you must concede that they have derived the
meaning of these terms from somewhere (the context of their usage
perhaps).
Saying that they are not even wrong means nothing in this context.
Ironically.
backspace
> > No, because until they tell me their intent or pragmatics with Natural
> > Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong.
> Please explain what you mean by saying that they are not even wrong.
> Are you or are you not saying that scientists today are discussing a
> topic about which they have no idea as to the meaning of the terms it
> uses.
Yes
> If the answer is yes, then why has no one else except you brought this
> to their attention.
It has been repeatedly brought to their and Dembski and Ken Hams
attention. But this whole thing has now become some sort of cottage
industry where neither creationists, IDsts and evolutionists are
interested in defining their terms because once they do there will be
nothing further to discuss. These endless debates using non-defined
terms is creating employment for a lot of people with each side
thinking the other is "wrong". It is one of the biggest deceptions in
the history of mankind and a very cruel way of inflicting mental harm
on Creationists, Idsts and evolutionists.
I can't repeat everything I have posted see this thread for further
clarity.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/38df9a9a127281a8?tvc=1
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
we
are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told,
often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that
indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well
as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but
we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
p.2
If you pick up a blank piece of paper with only two words "Natural
Selection" what could you deduce from it?
Absolutely nothing because you wouldn't know the authors intent.
Modern Evolutionists use the prase RM+NS
Random mutation plus Natural Selection. They have some sort of inten
with the word "random" but whatever this intent might be it can't be
the same as Darwin's intent with Natural Selection since he never said
anything was random and he clarified his intent or pragmatics with his
usage of "chance" by stating that it is an "... incorrect expression."
By reading OrigSpecies we therefore attempt to get Darwin's pragmatics
with "Natural Selection". Now the dishonesty and deceit comes in with
present Evolutionists using the word "random" and "natural selection"
in the same essay or paper like Harvard University
http://www.uoregon.edu/~wholmes/Shtulman_EvolTheory.pdf: "....Darwin
explained adaptation as the selective propagation of randomly
occurring mutations within a population...."
Shtulman's intent with "mutations" is genetic mutations which is not
what Darwin meant since he knew not of genes and Darwin never used the
word "random" and his pragmatics with "chance" didn't imply anything
"random".
What we are dealing with here is the Shtulman Theory of Evolution not
the Darwin Theory of Evolution because Shtulman has different intent
with the phrases he hijacked from Darwin. It is simply unbelievable
that he and every single evolutionists are activly implying that their
particular intent with "Natural Selection" was Darwin's intent.
"Natural Selection" is just two words strung together, the phrase
means nothing without intent. And I just don't seem to get the point
accross that the Evolutionists like Coyne, Dawkins must stop stating
that their pragmatics was Darwin's pragmatics - it wasn't as is clear
if one actually reads OriginSpecies.
When the penny finally drops that we are dealing with thousands of
Theories of Evolution with each person's particular intent with the
phrase a lot of people will have to go for trauma counceling as they
realise that all these years they have been believing in the Coyne
Theory of Evolution and not the Darwin Theory of Evolution nomatter
how much Coyne mixed in the words "Darwin" , "Natural Selection" and
"random".
The word "Darwin" is just tossed in as an afterthought to give the
illusion that everybody is talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution
and Darwin never even gave a Theory of Evolution.
He used Theory of gradual Evolution once and Theory of Evolution once
and then basically left it to your imagination to deduce that what he
meant by this was the gradual transformation of on species into
another. This ofcourse is not a theory but a conjecture. Your theory
is supposed to explain how this happened, something Darwin couldn't
even begin to attempt since he knew not of genes.
swedish...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 22, 7:04 pm, swedish.wann...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > No, because until they tell me their intent or pragmatics with Natural
> > > Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong.
> > Please explain what you mean by saying that they are not even wrong.
> > Are you or are you not saying that scientists today are discussing a
> > topic about which they have no idea as to the meaning of the terms it
> > uses.
>
> Yes
>
> > If the answer is yes, then why has no one else except you brought this
> > to their attention.
>
> It has been repeatedly brought to their and Dembski and Ken Hams
> attention. But this whole thing has now become some sort of cottage
> industry where neither creationists, IDsts and evolutionists are
> interested in defining their terms because once they do there will be
> nothing further to discuss. These endless debates using non-defined
> terms is creating employment for a lot of people with each side
> thinking the other is "wrong". It is one of the biggest deceptions in
> the history of mankind and a very cruel way of inflicting mental harm
> on Creationists, Idsts and evolutionists.
>
> I can't repeat everything I have posted see this thread for further
> "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
> we
> are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told,
> often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that
> indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well
> as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but
> we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
> precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
> and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
> Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
> p.2
>
> If you pick up a blank piece of paper with only two words "Natural
> Selection" what could you deduce from it?
> Absolutely nothing because you wouldn't know the authors intent.
> Modern Evolutionists use the prase RM+NS
> Random mutation plus Natural Selection. They have some sort of inten
> with the word "random" but whatever this intent might be it can't be
> the same as Darwin's intent with Natural Selection since he never said
> anything was random and he clarified his intent or pragmatics with his
> usage of "chance" by stating that it is an "... incorrect expression."
>
> By reading OrigSpecies we therefore attempt to get Darwin's pragmatics
> with "Natural Selection". Now the dishonesty and deceit comes in with
> present Evolutionists using the word "random" and "natural selection"
You seem to be under the misapprehension that words require canonical
definitions to be mutually understood. This is of course nonsense as
there are a vast array of terms that have no such definition and even
those that do can quite legitimately have their meanings refined as
new information regarding them is discovered..
It is perfectly clear what Darwin meant by natural selection, but one
has to read the book in its entirety. No one else seems to have a
problem with this.
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This is precisely my point: You can't refer me to a single passage
>anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
>Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
>world wars and Stalins Gulags.
I really try to avoid saying things like this, but the above paragraph
may be the single most breathtakingly ignorant thing I have read on
this group, and that's not for lack of competition.
You claim to know that Darwin himself didn't know what he meant, which
would already be arrogant beyond the usual human capacity, even before
we consider that you HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK. You then decorate this
gaudy festival of arrogance and bottomless pit of ignorance with tacky
bits of Nazi and Soviet innuendo.
But for the lack of the usual humor your paragraph above would make an
excellent Chez Watt, in the "henceforth the trophy will be named after
you" category.
Greg Guarino
backspace
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that words require canonical
> definitions to be mutually understood. This is of course nonsense as
> there are a vast array of terms that have no such definition and even
> those that do can quite legitimately have their meanings refined as
> new information regarding them is discovered..
to write complete nonsense but couch it in
beautiful English: John Wilkins, I don't think you should try and use
words if you don't really know what it means or try and come across as
a literary giant. These debates calls for brutal honesty, don't try to
pass yourself of as something you are not. I myself have made about
four logical errors that have been pointed out to me and have readily
admitted to it, please sir honesty, honesty - don't try to sound
clever if you are not.
> It is perfectly clear what Darwin meant by natural selection, but one
> has to read the book in its entirety. No one else seems to have a
> problem with this.
But this is something you have not done and I would urge you to do it.
Darwin was very deceptive. In any science journal or book it won't be
tolerated to use a word like "chance" and then keep it a big surprise
for everybody and state right at the end ".... it is an incorrect
expression..." In other words as Darwin admitted he had no idea what
he was talking about. He goes on and on with his poetic language and
never gets to the point. He jumps in with Theory of Natural Selection
yet never tells us what is the theory. Somewhere around the middle he
states something to the
effect that it is "verbal shorthand for organisms preserved.." Or
something like that you would have to read the context. Imagine if
Einstein or Newton or Kepler were this deceptive and used the word
Theory
36 times: Theory of Natural Selection
once: Theory of gradual Evolution
once: Theory of Evolution
but never actually provides us with the theory. There is no science
book in the literature of physics, maths, chemistry where anybody will
get away with using Theory of.... 38 times and instead of giving you a
theory makes conjectures. Darwin confused a theory with a conjecture.
backspace
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:02:56 -0700, backspace
>
No, I have not read the entire book it is mindnumbing nonsense.
Darwin's prose and grammar is one big mess. But I look up key phrases
that he uses and then try to deduce is pragmatics with it like for
example "chance". Somebody
around here posted in reply to me pointing out that there is not
"random" anything in Origin that Darwin used "chance". But "chance" as
used by a speaker will have his particular pragmatics, we use it in
colloquial terms associated with "random". Darwin specificly had no
such intent. Don't duck the issues sir. You people are commiting
intelectual and academic fraud by attributing Random Mutations coined
in 1910 by an author to sir Charles Darwin an English gentelemen
around 1859 who never had such pragmatics or intent.
This is the issue you must address and you people are ignoring it and
this is clear for all to see.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 23, 6:44 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:02:56 -0700, backspace
>
> > <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >This is precisely my point: You can't refer me to a single passage
> > >anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
> > >Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
> > >world wars and Stalins Gulags.
>
> > I really try to avoid saying things like this, but the above paragraph
> > may be the single most breathtakingly ignorant thing I have read on
> > this group, and that's not for lack of competition.
>
> > You claim to know that Darwin himself didn't know what he meant, which
> > would already be arrogant beyond the usual human capacity, even before
> > we consider that you HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK. You then decorate this
> > gaudy festival of arrogance and bottomless pit of ignorance with tacky
> > bits of Nazi and Soviet innuendo.
>
> > But for the lack of the usual humor your paragraph above would make an
> > excellent Chez Watt, in the "henceforth the trophy will be named after
> > you" category.
>
> > Greg Guarino
>
> No, I have not read the entire book it is mindnumbing nonsense.
So if you have not read the book, how do you *know* that it is
"mindnumbing nonsense"?
> Darwin's prose and grammar is one big mess.
Generations of scholars and critics disagree with you. As they have
actually *read* the book, their opinion is rather more soundly based
that yours.
> But I look up key phrases
> that he uses and then try to deduce is pragmatics with it like for
> example "chance".
In other words you make not attempt whatsoever to try to understand
what Darwin meant by the terms he was using - i.e. the pragmatics.
So your argument is that because you refuse to make any effort to
understand what Darwin was saying, his work is flawed.
> Somebody
> around here posted in reply to me pointing out that there is not
> "random" anything in Origin that Darwin used "chance". But "chance" as
> used by a speaker will have his particular pragmatics, we use it in
> colloquial terms associated with "random". Darwin specificly had no
> such intent.
How do you know? All you have done is cherry-pick phrases without
making any attempt to understand the context in which they are used.
As you admit to not having read the book, this is something you are
making up to support your argument. I call that lying. What do you
call it?
> Don't duck the issues sir. You people are commiting
> intelectual and academic fraud by attributing Random Mutations coined
> in 1910 by an author to sir Charles Darwin
Darwin did not receive an knighthood.
> an English gentelemen
> around 1859 who never had such pragmatics or intent.
As you have not read or tried to understand what he wrote, this is
something you have invented to support your argument. I call this a
lie. What do you call it?
>
> This is the issue you must address and you people are ignoring it and
> this is clear for all to see.
The issue, if there is one, is that you are making things up to
support your argument without bothering to read the work on which you
are commenting. I call this lying. What do you call it?
RF
backspace
Established by whom? Where did Darwin have this specific intent in
OriginSpecies. Where in which of his 16 phrases
did he have this pragmatics. Or is this the YeOldOne Theory of
Survivial of the Fittest?
wf...@comcast.net
>On Jun 22, 3:18 pm, swedish.wann...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> You have misunderstood/ignored what I wrote. Origin of Species in its
>> entirety and all the subsequent literature is where we get our meaning
>> from (pragmatics as you wish to call it).
>This is precisely my point: You can't refer me to a single passage
>anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
>Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
>world wars and Stalins Gulags.
?? what??
i suppose it's the reason, as well, why hockey isn't popular to watch
on TV and why no one eats potted meat...
boy, talk about creationist non sequiturs...
>
>No, because until they tell me their intent or pragmatics with Natural
>Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong.
>
seems pauli wasn't a creationist..so, i guess, quantum mechanics has
no 'pragmatics'...
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 22, 7:04 pm, swedish.wann...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> > No, because until they tell me their intent or pragmatics with Natural
>> > Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong.
>
>> Please explain what you mean by saying that they are not even wrong.
>> Are you or are you not saying that scientists today are discussing a
>> topic about which they have no idea as to the meaning of the terms it
>> uses.
>Yes
>
>> If the answer is yes, then why has no one else except you brought this
>> to their attention.
>It has been repeatedly brought to their and Dembski and Ken Hams
>attention. But this whole thing has now become some sort of cottage
>industry where neither creationists, IDsts and evolutionists are
>interested in defining their terms because once they do there will be
>nothing further to discuss.
science progresses. religion does not. big difference.
>
>If you pick up a blank piece of paper with only two words "Natural
>Selection" what could you deduce from it?
>Absolutely nothing because you wouldn't know the authors intent.
>Modern Evolutionists use the prase RM+NS
>Random mutation plus Natural Selection. T
seems every scientist in the world understands those terms. even
CREATIONISTS do because they argue against them. how can you argue
against what has no meaning?
just check the term 'intelligent design'. it has no experimental
support, nor has anyone been able to pin it down well enough to
criticize it because it's meaningless. behe's testimony in
dover....saying that ID would allow astrology...is proof of THAT...
>
>What we are dealing with here is the Shtulman Theory of Evolution not
>the Darwin Theory of Evolution because Shtulman has different intent
>with the phrases he hijacked from Darwin.
gee. bohr used the term 'quantum mechanics'. einstein used the term
'quantum mechanics'.
backspace seems to think that, if 2 people use the same term, it
becomes meaningless because you can't tell what each person means.
IOW language and communication is impossible.
>
>When the penny finally drops that we are dealing with thousands of
>Theories of Evolution with each person's particular intent
what do yo mean by that?
>
>The word "Darwin" is just tossed in as an afterthought to give the
>illusion that everybody is talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution
>and Darwin never even gave a Theory of Evolution.
>He used Theory of gradual Evolution once and Theory of Evolution once
>and then basically left it to your imagination to deduce that what he
>meant by this was the gradual transformation of on species into
>another. This ofcourse is not a theory but a conjecture.
what is a 'theory'? what are its pragmatics? how do you know einstein
had the same idea of 'theory' as bohr did? why doesn't this render
quantum mechanics impossible?
IOW your concept, as applied to language...especially science...makes
language AND science impossible.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>No, I have not read the entire book it is mindnumbing nonsense.
>Darwin's prose and grammar is one big mess.
guess he's never read the bible cover to cover. i have...and the
quran...
talk about mind numbing nonsense....
swedish...@googlemail.com
I don't think we're really going to get anywhere here. It is clear
that:
To understand natural selection one needs to read Origin of Species in
its entierety.
You refuse to read Origin of Species in its entirety.
Therefore, you're never going to understand natural selection.
Care to deny the logic?
swedish...@googlemail.com
Wow, I have never been accused of attempting to write like a literary
giant before, however, I am well aware that you didn't mean it as any
sort of compliment. I will merely say that this is how I have been
taught to write. I am new to Usenet and still write and check my posts
through altering them if it is required to make them flow better. I
assure you that I understand the terms I use. And so to does everyone
else even you, despite the fact that I have not written a separate
post somewhere giving a detailed definition of them.
Anyway, it seems utterly pointless to continue this discussion with.
You seem to believe that, privately, we are all utterly confused as to
the meaning of the words we use and not that we have acquired this
meaning through context and continued usage. You also seem unwilling/
unable to accept that the meaning of words can be refined over time
and that a term used by Charles Darwin can be used years later when
knowledge of the subject has advanced and still have the same
fundamental meaning, albeit with modification. This is a strength, not
a fundamental flaw.
Ye Old One
If you read the book, as a whole, then that is the condensed
description of "Survival of the fittest".
--
Bob.
backspace
somewhere in 1950's that Darwin had no maths ability and that in a
letter he wrote he stated that he made sense of algebra or something
to that effect. So lets just recap here we have Darwin's pragmatics
with "chance" we know he couldn't do mathematics nevermind "complex
math"
so I ask Dr. Wilkins if he will be kind enough to explain his
pragmatics then with the quote below the one I posted first in this
thread. Because as it stand I have no idea what you are talking about
and have a vague notion that you also don't
really knew but were just showing for us you ability to wield the
English language and essential talk absolute nonsense. If you will Dr.
Wilkins please be so kind as to respond thank you.
John Wilkins: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e?tvc=1
"... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
interpretable...."
DuhIdiot
> >On Jun 22, 3:18 pm, swedish.wann...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> You have misunderstood/ignored what I wrote. Origin of Species in its
> >> entirety and all the subsequent literature is where we get our meaning
> >> from (pragmatics as you wish to call it).
> >This is precisely my point: You can't refer me to a single passage
> >anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
> >Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
> >world wars and Stalins Gulags.
>
> ?? what??
>
> i suppose it's the reason, as well, why hockey isn't popular to watch
> on TV and why no one eats potted meat...
Hey hey hey! Lay off potted meat, pal! I love those slaughterhouse
floor scrapings, I eat them frequently, and backspace here seems to
like them enough to have replaced most of his cerebrum with them.
backspace
Read it and then you tell me what is your pragmatics with Natural
Selection. I have asked you many times just give me in your own words
what is your intent with "Natural Selection" - what are you trying to
state when using it?
Bob T.
The phrase "Natural Selection" means "backspace is a moron." Whenever
anyone uses that phrase, or any other phrase, just think to yourself
"I'm a moron!" and you will be truly naturaled.
- Bob T.
mel turner
news:1182582163....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 6:44 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:02:56 -0700, backspace
>> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >This is precisely my point: You can't refer me to a single passage
>> >anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
>> >Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
>> >world wars and Stalins Gulags.
If you're secretly trying to make antievolutionists look idiotic,
you're doing a fine job.
>> I really try to avoid saying things like this, but the above paragraph
>> may be the single most breathtakingly ignorant thing I have read on
>> this group, and that's not for lack of competition.
>>
>> You claim to know that Darwin himself didn't know what he meant, which
>> would already be arrogant beyond the usual human capacity, even before
>> we consider that you HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK. You then decorate this
>> gaudy festival of arrogance and bottomless pit of ignorance with tacky
>> bits of Nazi and Soviet innuendo.
>>
>> But for the lack of the usual humor your paragraph above would make an
>> excellent Chez Watt, in the "henceforth the trophy will be named after
>> you" category.
> No, I have not read the entire book it is mindnumbing nonsense.
And does that explain why your mind is numb?
> Darwin's prose and grammar is one big mess.
Considering the source, the irony of that complaint is rather
breathtaking.
>But I look up key phrases
> that he uses and then try to deduce is pragmatics with it like for
> example "chance".
Alas, the numbness doesn't seem to be wearing off anytime soon.
>Somebody
> around here posted in reply to me pointing out that there is not
> "random" anything in Origin that Darwin used "chance". But "chance" as
> used by a speaker will have his particular pragmatics, we use it in
> colloquial terms associated with "random".
Just what is it that you think you're trying to say?
>Darwin specificly had no such intent.
How very clever of you to read the minds of dead authors you haven't
read.
>Don't duck the issues sir.
You have presented no actual issues. Can you even come up with a
coherent complaint?
>You people are commiting
> intelectual and academic fraud by attributing Random Mutations coined
> in 1910 by an author to sir Charles Darwin an English gentelemen
> around 1859 who never had such pragmatics or intent.
Whereas no one can accuse you of intellectual or academic anything?
> This is the issue you must address and you people are ignoring it and
> this is clear for all to see.
There is something here that is undoubtedly clear for all to see,
but that's not it.
cheers
g...@risky-biz.com
> On Jun 23, 6:44 am,GregGuarino<gdguar...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:02:56 -0700, backspace
>
> > <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >This is precisely my point: You can't refer me to a single passage
> > >anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
> > >Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
> > >world wars and Stalins Gulags.
>
> > I really try to avoid saying things like this, but the above paragraph
> > may be the single most breathtakingly ignorant thing I have read on
> > this group, and that's not for lack of competition.
>
> > You claim to know that Darwin himself didn't know what he meant, which
> > would already be arrogant beyond the usual human capacity, even before
> > we consider that you HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK. You then decorate this
> > gaudy festival of arrogance and bottomless pit of ignorance with tacky
> > bits of Nazi and Soviet innuendo.
>
> > But for the lack of the usual humor your paragraph above would make an
> > excellent Chez Watt, in the "henceforth the trophy will be named after
> > you" category.
>
> >GregGuarino
>
> No, I have not read the entire book it is mindnumbing nonsense.
> Darwin's prose and grammar is one big mess. But I look up key phrases
> that he uses and then try to deduce is pragmatics with it like for
> example "chance".
I think that your method of um, reading, could reduce any book to
nonsense. Darwin's prose is quite clear if one takes the precaution of
reading it in order. But here's an on-topic bit that is perfectly
clear to me:
"Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to
man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some
way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should
occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur,
can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can
possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any
variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations,
and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called
Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither
useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and
would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in
certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing
to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."
I think that sums up Darwin's "intent" quite nicely, and, as if it was
necessary, neatly destroys any claim that he himself didn't know what
he meant. You have also had these concepts explained to with
kindergarten simplicity any number of times on this group, including
at least two attempts by me that you have ignored:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d891d6b4b9/81338c11b0f9ef0c?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#81338c11b0f9ef0c
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/bd3590d6126d0080/b82c55dbff8f39d3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4#b82c55dbff8f39d3
In short, we get it. You won't be convinced. Your particular method of
willful blindness has a few new twists to it, but that's all.
Greg Guarino
g...@risky-biz.com
something more fitting)space,
No reply to this one? Why not?
On Jun 21, 10:38 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Your thesis can be boiled down to this:
>
> ----------------------------------
> One hundred and fifty years ago Charles Darwin described his theories
> in a book of five hundred pages,
>
> Yet his intent is unclear.
>
> Said book would surely be on anyone's list of the most influential
> books in the history of mankind. Even those who believe that inlfuence
> is for ill would agree.
>
> Yet no one knows what Darwin meant.
>
> For 150 years biologists have studied and used the principles set
> forth by Darwin, expanding on and refining them.
>
> ...without actually understanding what those principles are.
>
> And finally, that the millions of people who have actually read the
> Origin and thought they understood its meaning are mistaken.
>
> But you, who have not read it, are not.
> ----------------------------------
>
> GregGuarino
backspace
>
> In short, we get it. You won't be convinced. Your particular method of
> willful blindness has a few new twists to it, but that's all.
In short the paragraph you quoted states:"Some survived , some didn't
those that did survive are here, those that didn't are dead." Is this
Natural Selection , Theory of Natural Selection, Theory of gradual
evolution, Theory of Evolution and Theory of Survival of the Fittest
the same thing? Did Darwin have three theory's Theory of Natural
Selection, Theory of Evolution and Theory of Survival of the fittest.
What was Darwin's intent with Theory of Natural Selection and Natural
Selection how do they differ?
And how do you relate his pragmatics with "chance" where he stated it
is an ".... incorrect expression" with the
modern day expression of Random Natural Selection and the Coyne
version of Non-Random Natural Selection.
We have a single word occuring over and over again. I believe Coyne
used "Natural Selection" 50 times in his review of Behe's book. What
is your pragmatics with NS , what is Coyne's what a 7-year old kid's
pragmatics with NS?
Natural, natural , natural everything got naturaled and nobody can
tell me what is their particular intent with "natural".
Is Natural Selection a cause or an effect. Colby says it is an effect,
but never tells us what is the cause then.
Show me any dicipline in science where you can state some phenomena is
an effect but refuse to tell us what then is the cause - only language
coo-coo-clock land of brainwashed "naturaled" evolutionists and IDsts.
The fundamental question you are not answering is:
Is NS a cause or an effect?
What is your pragmatics with Random Mutations + Natural Selection if
Darwin never had any "randomish" pragmatics and never used the word
random?
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>In short the paragraph you quoted states:"Some survived , some didn't
>those that did survive are here, those that didn't are dead." Is this
>Natural Selection , Theory of Natural Selection, Theory of gradual
>evolution, Theory of Evolution and Theory of Survival of the Fittest
>the same thing? Did Darwin have three theory's Theory of Natural
>Selection, Theory of Evolution and Theory of Survival of the fittest.
pick one...any one...
>
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In short the paragraph you quoted states:"Some survived , some didn't
>those that did survive are here, those that didn't are dead."
Nope. Try again.
Greg Guarino
chris.li...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:02:56 -0700, backspace
>
> > <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >This is precisely my point: You can't refer me to a single passage
> > >anywhere that actually clarifies what Darwin's intent was with Natural
> > >Selection - he himself had no idea. And because of this we had two
> > >world wars and Stalins Gulags.
>
> > I really try to avoid saying things like this, but the above paragraph
> > may be the single most breathtakingly ignorant thing I have read on
> > this group, and that's not for lack of competition.
>
> > You claim to know that Darwin himself didn't know what he meant, which
> > would already be arrogant beyond the usual human capacity, even before
> > we consider that you HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK. You then decorate this
> > gaudy festival of arrogance and bottomless pit of ignorance with tacky
> > bits of Nazi and Soviet innuendo.
>
> > But for the lack of the usual humor your paragraph above would make an
> > excellent Chez Watt, in the "henceforth the trophy will be named after
> > you" category.
>
> > Greg Guarino
>
> No, I have not read the entire book it is mindnumbing nonsense.
> Darwin's prose and grammar is one big mess.
I have read it and you are utterly mistaken. Darwin strove to make his
meanings as clear as possible. He was an extremely eloquent and
erudite writer, and he succeeded in making his points in a perfectly
lucid manner. That you seem to be incapable of understanding them is
not Darwin's fault, but your own. You should perhaps locate one of the
perfectly acceptable annotated versions before you continue your
idiotic tirade.
And before you rant on at me about finding "one single paragraph" in
which Darwin does what only you think he should do, be on notice that
he is under no obligation to present his ideas in the manner you
demand, only in a manner which is understandable by normal human
beings. He does so admirably, while you fail miserably.
> But I look up key phrases
> that he uses and then try to deduce is pragmatics with it like for
> example "chance".
Yeah, and I read the Cliff Notes to "King Lear". Shakespeare- that
dork couldn't write to save his life.
Idiot.
Chris
backspace
> man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some
> way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should
> occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur,
> can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can
> possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
> slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
> procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any
> variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
> This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations,
> and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called
> Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither
> useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and
> would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in
> certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing
> to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."
>
> I think that sums up Darwin's "intent" quite nicely
Now please give me Darwin's intent what was his pragmatics in your own
words in plain English.
backspace
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have read it and you are utterly mistaken. Darwin strove to make his
> meanings as clear as possible. He was an extremely eloquent and
> erudite writer, and he succeeded in making his points in a perfectly
> lucid manner. That you seem to be incapable of understanding them is
> not Darwin's fault, but your own.
Or perhaps its Dr. Wilkins fault he want from "complex math" to "turns
the whole thing into a tautology". Read my first post since you
haven't read the whole thread. If it is so clear then please elucidate
for me Darwin's pragmatics with "Survival of the Fittest" - what was
his intent and then explain to me what it has got to do with "complex
math".
wf...@comcast.net
the question is: why should
1. he respond to your request
2. why can't YOU figure it out for yourself
3. why do you think HIS response is more valid than darwin's?
what garbage you post...
hersheyhv
> On Jun 23, 4:50 pm, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 3:02 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 6:44 am,GregGuarino<gdguar...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:02:56 -0700, backspace
>
> > > > <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to
> > man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some
> > way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should
> > occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur,
> > can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can
> > possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
> > slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
> > procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any
> > variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
> > This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations,
> > and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called
> > Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither
> > useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and
> > would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in
> > certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing
> > to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."
>
> > I think that sums up Darwin's "intent" quite nicely, and, as if it was
> > necessary, neatly destroys any claim that he himself didn't know what
> > he meant. You have also had these concepts explained to with
> > kindergarten simplicity any number of times on this group, including
> > at least two attempts by me that you have ignored:
>
>
> > In short, we get it. You won't be convinced. Your particular method of
> > willful blindness has a few new twists to it, but that's all.
>
> In short the paragraph you quoted states:"Some survived , some didn't
> those that did survive are here, those that didn't are dead."
No. It says that some survived *because* in that particular
environment that particular variant is favored or disfavored. In
order for survival to be due to "natural selection" the differential
reproductive success must be a consequence of a *causal* effect of the
local environment. Differential survival that is due to chance alone
is NOT natural selection; it is neutral drift.
> Is this
> Natural Selection , Theory of Natural Selection, Theory of gradual
> evolution, Theory of Evolution and Theory of Survival of the Fittest
> the same thing?
No. Natural Selection is what happens. The Theory of Natural
Selection explains what happens. The theory of 'gradual' evolution is
sometimes counterposed to the theory of punctuated equilibrium; both
are about the *rates* at which evolution occurs. The theory of
evolution includes both evolution by natural selection and evolution
by neutral changes. There is no "Theory of Survival of the Fittest".
That phrase is merely shorthand for what happens during natural
selection. It is rarely used today because of its inadequacy as a
shorthand description. "Differential reproductive success" is a
better shorthand that overcomes some of the obvious misconceptions
that "survival of the fittest" produces in the small and limited minds
that willfully try to misinterpret it as a tautology or take it too
literally.
> Did Darwin have three theory's Theory of Natural
> Selection, Theory of Evolution and Theory of Survival of the fittest.
>
> What was Darwin's intent with Theory of Natural Selection and Natural
> Selection how do they differ?
Darwin and the creationist biologists of his and earlier times all
recognized that natural selection happens. They differed in that
Darwin recognized that natural selection could be a process for
adapting an organism's biology to changes in local environments
whereas the creationist biologists saw natural selection as a purely
negative removal of defectives.
> And how do you relate his pragmatics with "chance" where he stated it
> is an ".... incorrect expression" with the
> modern day expression of Random Natural Selection and the Coyne
> version of Non-Random Natural Selection.
If it qualifies as "natural selection" it must be non-random. That is
the differential reproductive success must be *causally* linked to
environmental discrimination for alternative variants. Random or
chance differences in reproductive success result in neutral drift,
not natural selection. Neither possibility (selection or drift),
however, can result in absolute stasis.
> We have a single word occuring over and over again. I believe Coyne
> used "Natural Selection" 50 times in his review of Behe's book. What
> is your pragmatics with NS , what is Coyne's what a 7-year old kid's
> pragmatics with NS?
>
> Natural, natural , natural everything got naturaled and nobody can
> tell me what is their particular intent with "natural".
Natural as opposed to designed or 'artificed' (artificial) selection.
'Intelligent design' evolution is also called eugenics or animal/plant
breeding.
> Is Natural Selection a cause or an effect. Colby says it is an effect,
> but never tells us what is the cause then.
Local environments cause (result in) selection, if and when selection
happens. Selection does not *need* to be present. There are many
variants that are selectively neutral.
> Show me any dicipline in science where you can state some phenomena is
> an effect but refuse to tell us what then is the cause - only language
> coo-coo-clock land of brainwashed "naturaled" evolutionists and IDsts.
>
> The fundamental question you are not answering is:
> Is NS a cause or an effect?
NS is *caused by* the differential effect that local environments have
on different variants. If the local environment has no causal effect
on the different variants, change is due to neutral drift rather than
NS. Neutral drift is the absence of detectable selection.
> What is your pragmatics with Random Mutations + Natural Selection if
> Darwin never had any "randomish" pragmatics and never used the word
> random?
He never used the word 'gene' or 'mutation' either. He made no claim
that the "variants" he talked about arose "randomly". It was the
geneticists of the 1930s and later who ultimately determined that
mutations (and the variants due to these changes) arose randomly.
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
1. I have. Several times.
2. The quote above IS in plain English and requires only the most
minor effort to understand.
Try again.
Greg Guarino
chris.li...@gmail.com
No.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that it is incumbent
on everyone here to educate you. That attempt has been made, and you
have erected walls around your garden of ignorance that none can
breach, while you cultivate your lack of knowledge inside.
Darwin's meaning is clear to anyone who takes the time to read his
book, or even to study any introductory-level college biology text,
If you are too lazy, or stupidly obstinate, to remediate your own
brain rot, there's no reason anyone around here should waste their
time spoonfeeding you over and over, only to have you spit the
information on the floor, like the spoiled whelp you are.
I will, however, offer you a compromise. If you show that you are
making any effort to understand natural selection, I will explain the
math to you. It is not as complex as Wilkins asserted- not at its most
basic level, anyway- and it might just help you.
Chris
John Wilkins
I didn't assert any particular level of complexity, but as backspace
well knows, I already gave the mathematical equations for the
fundamental theorem. It's only complex relative to a verbal shorthand.
This guy *is* lazy, obstinate and stupid. No matter how much information
you give him he will find a way to evade or ignore it. That's why,
despite being fixated on me for some reason, I have him in my killfile
now. I strongly recommend you do the same unless you are in want of some
cheap entertainment.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Greg Guarino
>On Jun 22, 4:53 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:41:37 -0700, backspace
>> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >Survival of the fittest means what?
>>
>> That, in any environment, those organisms best suited to the
>> environment stand the best chance of survival and therefore
>> procreation.
>
>Established by whom? Where did Darwin have this specific intent in
>OriginSpecies. Where in which of his 16 phrases
>did he have this pragmatics.
In which of his 16 phrases? I don't remember a book entitled Darwin's
16 Phrases.
In any case, you're in luck. The very issue you're asking about is
covered in the one paragraph I've asked you to read,
"Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful
toman have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some
way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should
occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur,
can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can
possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any
variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations,
and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called
Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither
useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and
would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in
certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing
to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."
Did you see it? It's the second sentence:
"If such [variations] do occur,
can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can
possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
procreating their kind?"
Glad to be of help.
Greg Guarino
John Wilkins
> Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:01:54 -0700, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 22, 4:53 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:41:37 -0700, backspace
> >> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >>
> >> >Survival of the fittest means what?
> >>
> >> That, in any environment, those organisms best suited to the
> >> environment stand the best chance of survival and therefore
> >> procreation.
> >
> >Established by whom? Where did Darwin have this specific intent in
> >OriginSpecies. Where in which of his 16 phrases
> >did he have this pragmatics.
>
> In which of his 16 phrases? I don't remember a book entitled Darwin's
> 16 Phrases.
He published it just after his Fourfold Path to Truth.
backspace
I started out on this forum in Jan 2007 stateing that our terms we use
in Creationist, Evolutionist, IDst circles are not defined and that
this is the reason why we are haveing these never ending debates. I
was on the right track and Perry Marshall finally showed me where this
entire debate is going all wrong when explaining that all sentences
must have Grammar, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. I will add to
this my "says who" expression. Most evolutionists make grandious
declerations of what the truth in "science" is yet can't tell who says
so. Has the person just formally established his view himself or is he
refering to somebody else that established it.
We have a language and cultural phenomena where everybody is using the
same grammar, syntax and semantics in using the phrases "Natural
Selection", "Fittest", "Random mutations" but nobody has either any
pragmatics with their sentences containg these phrases or are each
using his own particular pragmatics. Most people have no idea what
their intent is with "Natural Selection", they are so brainwashed that
they will never recover from their language madness.
A second thing is that everybody in developing their conjectures using
these phrases such as "random mutation", "selection", "natural" all
state that it is Darwin's theory. In most cases they are factually
wrong it is actually their conjecture, their theories using the same
syntax, grammar and semantics as Darwin but with a different
pragmatics. The best example is "random" a term Darwin never used and
never implied as his pragmatics with "chance" because he clarifies his
pragmatics with the word by stateing that it is an "...incorrect
expression..."
Because the premise of evoutionists is that everything must fit into
their reductionist materialist universe they will even go to the point
of making language itself undefined. The sole argument of Coyne
against Behe's latest book is the repetitive 40x chanting of "Natural
Selection" used without any pragmatics in a mainstream publication.
What makes it so insidious is that until Coyne defines his pragmatics
with "natural selection" he is not even wrong.
Is see Dr.Wilkins is "strongly urgeing" everybody around here to put
me in their killfiles. What I would strogly urge you as a student to
do next time he starts "naturaling" or "selecting" stuff is have a bit
of fun with him - disrupt the class. Ask him what is your grammar,
syntax , semantics and PRAGMATICS with "selection" - the third time
you ask him the sparks will fly. Because you see this debate is rigged
in one way: Semantics, grammar and syntax but no pragmatics which is
why we are all going nuts in a sense - evolutionists, creationists and
IDsts. If every sentence we were to make had no pragmatics human
communication will cease to exist. Imagine if your child saying "I
love you" had no pragmatics .... no intent. Now extend that to
"natural selection" and ask yourself what sort of mental illness will
result.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
y. Because you see this debate is rigged
>in one way: Semantics, grammar and syntax but no pragmatics which is
>why we are all going nuts in a sense -
well, some of us are...actually, some of YOU are...
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 24, 7:30 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> I started out on this forum in Jan 2007 stateing that our terms we use
> in Creationist, Evolutionist, IDst circles are not defined and that
> this is the reason why we are haveing these never ending debates.
You were wrong, which makes all your subsequent blather a complete
waste of time.
Your argument is that because you can't be bothered to try to
understand evolutionary biology, evolutionary biology is all wrong.
Just to clarify a point I and others have made, this demonstrates
nothing except that you are dishonest and willfully ignorant.
Get a freaking education.
RF
[snipped]
backspace
When you refer to "biology" what is your pragmatics. Are you refering
to genes as a language or to Darwin's fascination with cows making
baby cows not knowing that genes as a laguage is responsable for this.
"Biology" could really mean anything, you must define for me "Biology"
- what is your intent with this word?
Jim Willemin
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
That does it. I hate it when children use the tools of legitimate inquiry
to obfuscate rather than clarify, and to do so out of sheer naughtiness and
cussedness.
*PLONK*
Ernest Major
<j.wil...@uq.edu.au> writes
>
>He published it just after his Fourfold Path to Truth.
>
OK, that's neo-Darwinism, not Darwinism, but ...
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
>When you refer to "biology" what is your pragmatics.
Could you stop using the wrong pragmatics for pragmatics, please.
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
wrote:
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1182678310.183864.105510
Or lets say he used the phrase "Aeroplane studies". What does
"aerplane studies" mean? The intent could be planespotters studying
boeings landing at airports or it could mean aeronautical engineering
and deriving partial differential equations or the feedback control
loops using a gyro to keep a plane level. It could mean anything you
must tell me your pragmatics. Lets take finches that Darwin got so
worked up over. What is the feedforward control loop from the brain
that contracts the wing muscles and what is the bandwidth constraints
as the control signal travels over the sineews of the bird? What
field of "biology" are you talking about the feedback control loops
that govern finch flight or what?
backspace
> In message <1i07xlw.1gorp2719lfw99N%j.wilki...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins
> <j.wilki...@uq.edu.au> writes
>
> >He published it just after his Fourfold Path to Truth.
>
> Mutation, migration, drift and selection?
>
> OK, that's neo-Darwinism, not Darwinism, but ...
And somebody actually realised that neo-Darwinism has got nothing to
do with Darwin so now it is called the "Modern synthesis".
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 24, 10:42 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On 24 Jun, 08:06, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 7:30 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > > I started out on this forum in Jan 2007 stateing that our terms we use
> > > in Creationist, Evolutionist, IDst circles are not defined and that
> > > this is the reason why we are haveing these never ending debates.
>
> > You were wrong, which makes all your subsequent blather a complete
> > waste of time.
>
> > Your argument is that because you can't be bothered to try to
> > understand evolutionary biology, evolutionary biology is all wrong.
> > Just to clarify a point I and others have made, this demonstrates
> > nothing except that you are dishonest and willfully ignorant.
>
> When you refer to "biology" what is your pragmatics.
Look up the word in a dictionary.
> Are you refering
> to genes as a language or to Darwin's fascination with cows making
> baby cows not knowing that genes as a laguage is responsable for this.
> "Biology" could really mean anything, you must define for me "Biology"
> - what is your intent with this word?
I "must" do no such thing.
You need to educate yourself. Education provides the "pragmatics" (a
word whose meaning you need to look up as well) which you lack.
Unless you are asserting that all the people who have ever written
anything about any aspect of biology had no intent to communicate
anything in all their writings, your "pragamtics" is meaningless.
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
Considering what he had to work with Darwin was remarkably right, but
science has moved on since his term. (But the claim that neo-Darwinism
has nothing to do with Darwin is a falsehood - neo-Darwinism is so
called, at least in part, because it was a return to Darwinian views on
the importance of selection.)
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
> In message <1182681246.688202.66...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
1) What was Darwin's pragmatics with Selection, what is yours and what
is Dr.Wilkins and all the millions of creationists, evolutionists and
IDsts using this word?
2) What is the difference between "Selection" and "Natural Selection"
chris.li...@gmail.com
Well, we just pruned some bushes here, so I have some sticks I can use
to poke him. When they wear out, or when he gets *too boring (I
suspect the latter much earlier than the former) I'll consign him to
the bit bucket. I figured, if he did show any sign of intellectual
curiousity, I would post (as I have in the past) the numbers in some
nice NS experiments, and let him see how they work. But he's got to
show he has some fundamental understanding of the concept first- or
pay me at least as much as the college pays me for teaching buffoons
who don't want to learn. (I got quite lucky this summer- a class of
serious, and nice, students. It's a nonmajors class but they're taking
it well: instead of digging in their heels and being obstinate,
they're making the best of it And I teach better when I have that kind
of response, too, so we're all happy:)
Chris
richardal...@googlemail.com
If you want to know, read a fucking book called "Aeroplane Studies" to
find out.
Don't pretend that your dogmatic ignorance means that there is no such
subject, or that the people who study it don't know what they are
studying.
And find out what "pragmatics" means.
[snipped]
RF
Kermit
> Scordova on Dembski's blog pointed out in a book he quoted from
> somewhere in 1950's that Darwin had no maths ability and that in a
> letter he wrote he stated that he made sense of algebra or something
> to that effect. So lets just recap here we have Darwin's pragmatics
> with "chance" we know he couldn't do mathematics nevermind "complex
> math"
Although this is posted where a response to my post would be, it seems
to be a complete non sequitor.
Do you think that paraphrasing someone who wrote a paraphrase from a
book by a known liar and incompetent of an assertion that would be
meaningless even if were true, is useful?
Please explain why you think Darwin's math was inadequate for any of
his books, and why what Darwin wrote is necessary to understand when
discussing a modern science?
> so I ask Dr. Wilkins if he will be kind enough to explain his
> pragmatics
Do you mean that you want Wilkins to explain what he means?
> then with the quote below the one I posted first in this
> thread. Because as it stand I have no idea what you are talking about
> and have a vague notion that you also don't
You are staggeringly ignorant. But you are doing a good job of showing
how Creationists are typically morally bankrupt and scholastically
laughable.
> really knew but were just showing for us you ability to wield the
> English language and essential talk absolute nonsense. If you will Dr.
> Wilkins please be so kind as to respond thank you.
Why not respond to his post, rather than put it in a different thread?
Are you trying to avoid a dialog? What is your intent here?
>
> John Wilkins:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc73770...
> "... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
> The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
> interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
> For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
> definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
> interpretable...."
Kermit
backspace
> Well, we just pruned some bushes here, so I have some sticks I can use
> to poke him. When they wear out, or when he gets *too boring (I
> suspect the latter much earlier than the former) I'll consign him to
> the bit bucket. I figured, if he did show any sign of intellectual
> curiousity, I would post (as I have in the past) the numbers in some
> nice NS experiments, and let him see how they work. But he's got to
> show he has some fundamental understanding of the concept first- or
> pay me at least as much as the college pays me for teaching buffoons
> who don't want to learn. (I got quite lucky this summer- a class of
> serious, and nice, students. It's a nonmajors class but they're taking
> it well: instead of digging in their heels and being obstinate,
> they're making the best of it And I teach better when I have that kind
> of response, too, so we're all happy:)
Do you accept that the pragmatics of a 7-year old talking about
"Natural Selection" could differ from a PHD talking about
"Natual Selection"?
Bob T.
Yes, we see the difference between you and Dr. Wilkins.
- Bob T.
Kermit
> On Jun 24, 7:30 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> I started out on this forum in Jan 2007 stateing that our terms we use
> in Creationist, Evolutionist, IDst circles are not defined and that
> this is the reason why we are haveing these never ending debates.
You were promptly given several succinct and elegant definitions, all
of which agreed in substance. It was pointed out that if you wanted to
know what Darwin meant by them, you should read his book, which you
refuse to do. It was also pointed out that what Darwin meant by
various terms and phrases is largely irrelevant; what matters is how
they are used today, unless you are interested strictly in science
history. You seem, however, to be interested only in remaining
ignorant.
> I
> was on the right track and Perry Marshall finally showed me where this
> entire debate is going all wrong when explaining that all sentences
> must have Grammar, syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
Asking someone their pragmatics is like asking them their linguistics
or semiotics.
> I will add to
> this my "says who" expression. Most evolutionists make grandious
> declerations of what the truth in "science" is yet can't tell who says
> so.
This is obviously a lie. Nearly everyone here denies that there is an
Ultimate Truth discoverable by science. If they are explaining lower
case truth, the point out that science offers data, and testable
models to explain the data. All scientific truth is contigent on
further support be new data.
This avoids the arrogance of those who claim to know unverifiable
truth, and explicitly deals with the possibility of error in the most
straightforward manner possible.
Scientific truth and its explanation are precisely *not grandiose.
Asserting that anyone has to explain the origins of the words they use
is staggeringly stupid.
>Has the person just formally established his view himself or is he
> refering to somebody else that established it.
Nobody establishes most of the words of phrases we use, in any
language. More importantly, once a word or phrase is in common use,
its meaning changes over time.
>
> We have a language and cultural phenomena where everybody is using the
> same grammar, syntax and semantics in using the phrases "Natural
> Selection", "Fittest", "Random mutations" but nobody has either any
> pragmatics with their sentences containg these phrases or are each
> using his own particular pragmatics. Most people have no idea what
> their intent is with "Natural Selection", they are so brainwashed that
> they will never recover from their language madness.
This is either breathtakingly stupid, or a lie, or both.
> <snip>
>
> Is see Dr.Wilkins is "strongly urgeing" everybody around here to put
> me in their killfiles. What I would strogly urge you as a student to
> do next time he starts "naturaling" or "selecting" stuff is have a bit
> of fun with him - disrupt the class. Ask him what is your grammar,
> syntax , semantics and PRAGMATICS with "selection" - the third time
> you ask him the sparks will fly.
In other words, you are a passive-aggressive child with no interest in
learning. We knew that; but it is good you understand it.
> Because you see this debate is rigged
> in one way: Semantics, grammar and syntax but no pragmatics
Pragmatics is the study of meaning. Every time someone offers you a
definition, they are answering any questions you may have regarding
pragmatics. Which, BTW, you are not doing. You misunderstand the word,
dismiss responses, and do not engage in dialog.
> which is
> why we are all going nuts in a sense - evolutionists, creationists and
> IDsts. If every sentence we were to make had no pragmatics human
> communication will cease to exist.
If every term could only be used if we knew who created it, language
would be dead and communication impossible.
You have not yet addressed this observation.
> Imagine if your child saying "I
> love you" had no pragmatics .... no intent. Now extend that to
> "natural selection" and ask yourself what sort of mental illness will
> result.
Remember that time a girl said she liked you, and you asked her the
pragmatics of that sentence, and who established it? That's why she
didn't accept your offer for a date. That is why you have not yet
reproduced, and that is why the genepool is safe from whatever went
wrong with you.
Kermit
Kermit
I take it that the meaning you are trying to communicate here is: you
couldn't maintain your grades in school, so became a stupid twit in
order to *feel as though you knew better than the eggheads you
couldn't understand.
Of course in time you alienate everyone to the point they simply
ignore you (when they're not beating you up), which despressed you and
perpetuates the vicious cycle. Sad.
Kermit,
who's bored now.
Kermit
Two PhDs discussing natural selection *could have different intent.
Generally the way of discovering intent is to listen to what they are
saying. If you are too ignorant or dull witted to follow, the accepted
practice is to ask what they mean.
They don't "have pragmatics", and neither do their sentences. What you
should be doing is simply caring about what they mean. What is your
native language?
Kermit
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>When you refer to "biology" what is your pragmatics. Are you refering
>to genes as a language or to Darwin's fascination with cows making
>baby cows not knowing that genes as a laguage is responsable for this.
>"Biology" could really mean anything, you must define for me "Biology"
>- what is your intent with this word?
reading his posts is little different than watching the material swirl
around in the toilet before it disappears...
hersheyhv
>From your lack of understanding (and unwillingness to learn), it is a
certainty. You are clearly well below the level of the 7-year old wrt
your understanding of NS and have no interest in further understanding
the process, which can be and has been defined down to the level of
mathematical statement.
To get to a state of simple complete ignorance about NS, you would
first have to unlearn the misinformation you store in what passes for
a brain. You represent what I call creationist negative knowledge,
or, as stated by wittier men than I, "It isn't what you don't know
that is the problem; it's what you know that ain't so."
Your childish word and pseudosemantic games get boring. For someone
who rambles on about syntax and language, you have a very poor grasp
of even that.
chris.li...@gmail.com
I take it you are declining my offer? Here it is again:
backspace
> To get to a state of simple complete ignorance about NS, you would
> first have to unlearn the misinformation you store in what passes for
> a brain. You represent what I call creationist negative knowledge,
> or, as stated by wittier men than I, "It isn't what you don't know
> that is the problem; it's what you know that ain't so."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"....Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits become
more common in generations organisms, and unfavorable traits become
less common....."
Rephrased so that nothing gets "naturaled":
"...Favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations and
unfavorable traits become less common....."
What is your intent by stating that those that are favourable become
more favoured is Natural Selection? What has favourable traits
becoming more common got to do with the word "Selection" - what is
your intent.
hersheyhv
> On Jun 24, 5:01 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > To get to a state of simple complete ignorance about NS, you would
> > first have to unlearn the misinformation you store in what passes for
> > a brain. You represent what I call creationist negative knowledge,
> > or, as stated by wittier men than I, "It isn't what you don't know
> > that is the problem; it's what you know that ain't so."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits become
> more common in generations organisms, and unfavorable traits become
> less common....."
Due to the *environment's* interaction with phenotype and indirectly
genotype. That is, in NS the *environment* determines *causally*
which phenotypes (traits) get perpetuated.
> Rephrased so that nothing gets "naturaled":
Is "naturaled" supposed to be a meaningful term? If what *you* mean
by "naturaled" is what happens when the *natural* environment
differentially affects the reproductive success of different
phenotypes, you are on the right track.
> "...Favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations and
> unfavorable traits become less common....."
> What is your intent by stating that those that are favourable become
> more favoured is Natural Selection? What has favourable traits
> becoming more common got to do with the word "Selection" - what is
> your intent.
Is the above word salad supposed to mean something? I have stated
that natural selection is not an inevitable consequence of the
environment's interaction with different phenotypes. Natural
selection only occurs when the environmental (aka, nature's)
interaction with organismal phenotypes *differentially* (meaning, in
practice, a statistically significant difference) impacts on the
reproductive success of the differerent phenotypes. In the absence of
a detectable significant differential effect of the environment
(nature), we say that the two phenotypes are selective neutral wrt
each other and changes in phenotype frequency are a consequence of
random neutral drift and not due to natural selection.
[The distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' selection is the
difference between 'natural' evolution and eugenics. The latter
substitutes "intelligent design" by some "intelligent agent" for the
action of the dumb, unintelligent environment, usually to the ultimate
detriment of the organism in question.]
So there are two possibilities: natural selection or neutral drift.
[True genetic stasis is not a possibility because mutation happens.]
Which of these two possibilities occurs is a function of whether or
not the *environment* (aka, nature) makes a discriminative difference
in the reproductive success of different phenotypes. [Keep in mind
that only selection for phenotypes that are causally related to
genetic differences or drift that has a genetic effect will wind up as
*evolutionary* change.]
IOW, when there is "natural selection", the change in trait frequency
is a consequence of the discriminative effect of the environment on
different phenotypes. This has *evolutionary* consequences to the
extent that the phenotypic differences have a genetic basis.
What, specifically, is it that you don't understand in the above
description?
mel turner
news:1182714854.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 24, 1:49 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 5:01 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > To get to a state of simple complete ignorance about NS, you would
>> > first have to unlearn the misinformation you store in what passes for
>> > a brain. You represent what I call creationist negative knowledge,
>> > or, as stated by wittier men than I, "It isn't what you don't know
>> > that is the problem; it's what you know that ain't so."
[snip excellent response that "backspace" will doubtless ignore.]
> What, specifically, is it that you don't understand in the above
> description?
Based on his previous responses to previous good explanations:
"Every word of it"?
He's been corrected on "naturaled" since January, IIRC. The irony
of someone using "naturaled" and misusing "pragmatics", while
complaining about what he claims are others' sloppy or confusing
uses of language is apparently lost on him.
cheers
Greg Guarino
Let's not say that, because no one does, except in your fantasy
universe of fragmentary communication. I have never had anyone come up
to me and say "Airplane Studies" and walk away, and neither have you.
Yet this is the crux of your argument. It's as if you tore a random
page out of an aircraft repair manual and then complained that no one
understands aeronautics as the diagram only shows the cargo hold.
>What does
>"aerplane studies" mean? The intent could be planespotters studying
>boeings landing at airports or it could mean aeronautical engineering
>and deriving partial differential equations or the feedback control
>loops using a gyro to keep a plane level.
And of course the words surrounding those would have made it perfectly
clear what the speaker was talking about. It's the same situation for
"Natural Selection". Darwin explained it perfectly well. I have even
quoted you a very brief, easy to understand passage that is quite
adequate, even if you don't read the rest of the book.
You have so far avoided commenting on it, as it completely destroys
your position. Darwin's "intent" was crystal clear and the rest of us
understand it quite well, all the more so because unlike some areas of
science, Natural Selection is simple common sense that any reasonably
intelligent person can quickly get a grasp of.
>It could mean anything you must tell me your pragmatics.
I dare you to respond directly to this paragraph and try to maintain
that Darwin's "intent" is not clear.
"Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful
toman have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some
way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should
occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur,
can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can
possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any
variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.
This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations,
and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called
Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. Variations neither
useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and
would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in
certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing
to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."
Show us which sentence(s) you don't understand. Be specific.
Greg Guarino
backspace
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> > "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits become
> > more common in generations organisms, and unfavorable traits become
> > less common....."
> I have stated
> that Natural Selection is not an inevitable consequence of the
> environment's interaction with different phenotypes. Natural
> selection only occurs when the environmental (aka, nature's)
> interaction with organismal phenotypes *differentially* (meaning, in
> practice, a statistically significant difference) impacts on the
> reproductive success of the differerent phenotypes.
rephrase1:
> I have stated
> that Natural Selection is not an inevitable consequence of the
> environment's interaction with different phenotypes. Natural
> selection only occurs with the organisms response to the environmental factors
> non-similarly impacts on the reproductive success of the differerent organisms traits.
Synonym for "differential" is non-similar or not the same in this
context. For example "...differential reproduction.."
I understand the intent to be that no two dogs in a dog breed will be
exactly alike in either strenght or intellect.
rephrased2:
> Each particular organism from the same species responds to the environmental factors
> in a manner not the same for each organism.
rephrased3:
> Each particular puppy from the same female dog responds to the environmental factors
> in a manner not the same for each puppy.
We need to clarify a point of logic here: The organism is responding
to the environment, the environment is not causing anything. Do you
agree? If I don't know what your presuppositions are and they differ
from mine than I won't get your intent. The environment never causes
anything all organisms merely respond with their genes like a computer
program would respond to an event. With rephrased3 I get your intent
and there is no need for any "selections". But then again I still
don't know what is your intent with "selection".
hersheyhv
> On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> > > "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits become
> > > more common in generations organisms, and unfavorable traits become
> > > less common....."
> > I have stated
> > that Natural Selection is not an inevitable consequence of the
> > environment's interaction with different phenotypes. Natural
> > selection only occurs when the environmental (aka, nature's)
> > interaction with organismal phenotypes *differentially* (meaning, in
> > practice, a statistically significant difference) impacts on the
> > reproductive success of the differerent phenotypes.
>
> rephrase1:
>
> > I have stated
> > that Natural Selection is not an inevitable consequence of the
> > environment's interaction with different phenotypes. Natural
> > selection only occurs with the organisms response to the environmental factors
> > non-similarly impacts on the reproductive success of the differerent organisms traits.
>
> Synonym for "differential" is non-similar or not the same in this
> context.
Yes. It is the two phenotypes that are non-similar or
distinguishable. When there is NS, the same environment has a
significant differential impact on the two phenotypes, which is
observable as a significant difference in some measure of reproductive
success. When there is no NS, the same environment has no significant
differential impact on the two phenotypes, again using some metric of
reproductive success to determine the impact of the environment.
> For example "...differential reproduction.."
> I understand the intent to be that no two dogs in a dog breed will be
> exactly alike in either strenght or intellect.
No. To get a statistically valid measure of differential reproduction
as influenced by phenotype, you have to look at two distinct
*populations* of dogs (either within a breed or by examining different
breeds). For example, by comparing one population that has greater
strength versus one that has less strength in a particular
environment. Looking at only two dogs does not a valid statistic
make.
> rephrased2:
>
> > Each particular organism from the same species responds to the environmental factors
> > in a manner not the same for each organism.
>
> rephrased3:
>
> > Each particular puppy from the same female dog responds to the environmental factors
> > in a manner not the same for each puppy.
No. There must be a correlation between, say, strength and
reproductive success. Strength, of course, is a quantitative trait,
allowing one to use correlational analysis. Any correlation between
strength and reproductive success need not be linear. It often is the
case that both extremes (too strong -- often because it is associated
with greater size -- or too weak) are less reproductively successful
than some intermediate level of strength. Qualitative features, like
presence or absence of hip dysplasia, can also be used, but the
statistical methods are usually somewhat different. But this analysis
is not done by a case study method. Statistical difference requires
that you analyze populations, not one or two individuals.
> We need to clarify a point of logic here: The organism is responding
> to the environment, the environment is not causing anything. Do you
> agree?
The response (some measure of reproductive success) is, in fact, if
there is NS, caused by the environment's effect on the organisms, not
the organisms' effect on the environment. I certainly do not imply
that the environment is an intelligent agent, intelligently choosing
between choices. But just as dumb unintelligent lightning can *cause*
a fire without doing so intelligently, so can a dumb unintelligent
environment differentially *cause* effects on reproductive success in
organisms. But we can indeed say, in English, that an environment
where you are submerged in anoxic water at 100 C, will *cause* you to
die rather rapidly (but would be Edenesque if you were a
hyperthermophilic anaerobic archaean whereas our O2-filled frigid
environment would be toxic). That is, the environment produces a
detectable and *causal* rather than chance effect. And since early
death is sometimes useful as a measure of reproductive success, we can
clearly say that this environment would cause you to be reproductively
unsuccessful because of the effect it would have on your survival.
The only response of the organism to an environment that is of
interest wrt NS is some measure of reproductive success.
> If I don't know what your presuppositions are and they differ
> from mine than I won't get your intent.
If by presuppositions you mean assumptions, my assumptions are: 1)
That you are looking at single environment or one controlled (or
randomized) for other factors (usually so as to examine a single
causal factor in that environment). 2) That you can identify
populations with different phenotypic traits or are able to measure a
quantitative trait. 3) Those populations are either controlled for
other phenotypes (or randomized for them) so that you can isolate
effects due to this particular phenotypic difference. 4) You have
some valid measure that correlates with or measures reproductive
success. 5) That you are examining large enough populations to get
the degree of statistical validity you need. That's it. All of these
assumptions can certainly be validated in actual measurements of
relative fitness to an environment.
What presuppositions/assumptions do you make that differ from this?
> The environment never causes
> anything all organisms merely respond with their genes like a computer
> program would respond to an event. With rephrased3 I get your intent
> and there is no need for any "selections". But then again I still
> don't know what is your intent with "selection".
Of course you don't understand. Willful ignorance does that. But
selection, in this case, simply means that the same environment
*differentially* impacts or *causes* a significant difference in
reproductive success in two organisms with different phenotypes, such
that one phenotype has a significantly higher level of reproductive
success than the other. This must be determined by examining two
populations that differ in phenotype (particularly for qualitative
differences) or (for quantitative traits) by examining the correlation
of the amounts of that quantitative trait in a population with level
of reproductive success.
The reproductive success difference observed is the *effect* that the
environment has. The *cause* of that difference is the environment.
If the environment did not *cause* a difference in *effect*, then we
would be observing random drift and not selection. Basically, the
phenotypes are responding without significant difference to the
environment in such a case. I.e., the environment or that particular
feature of the environment does not produce a differential or
selective effect.
Kermit
> On Jun 24, 5:01 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > To get to a state of simple complete ignorance about NS, you would
> > first have to unlearn the misinformation you store in what passes for
> > a brain. You represent what I call creationist negative knowledge,
> > or, as stated by wittier men than I, "It isn't what you don't know
> > that is the problem; it's what you know that ain't so."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits become
> more common in generations organisms, and unfavorable traits become
> less common....."
> Rephrased so that nothing gets "naturaled":
You should not use adjectives as verbs unless it contributes to
clarity. You are deliberately obfuscating. "Natural" refers to the
kind of selecting; nothing is being made natural, or whatever you
think it would mean.
> "...Favorable traits become more common in succeeding generations and
> unfavorable traits become less common....."
> What is your intent by stating that those that are favourable become
> more favoured is Natural Selection?
Misrepresenting somebody's explanation, then complaining that it makes
no sense, is just sad.
> What has favourable traits
> becoming more common got to do with the word "Selection" - what is
> your intent.
Why do you *want to be a stupid git? This is what baffles me. You are
working very hard at it.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
<snip>
"
> > I have stated
> > that Natural Selection is not an inevitable consequence of the
> > environment's interaction with different phenotypes. Natural
> > selection only occurs when the environmental (aka, nature's)
> > interaction with organismal phenotypes *differentially* (meaning, in
> > practice, a statistically significant difference) impacts on the
> > reproductive success of the differerent phenotypes.
>
> rephrase1:
>
> > I have stated
> > that Natural Selection is not an inevitable consequence of the
> > environment's interaction with different phenotypes. Natural
> > selection only occurs with the organisms response to the environmental factors
> > non-similarly impacts on the reproductive success of the differerent organisms traits.
>
> Synonym for "differential" is non-similar or not the same in this
> context. For example "...differential reproduction.."
> I understand the intent to be that no two dogs in a dog breed will be
> exactly alike in either strenght or intellect.
>
Why do you restate someone's post, and then pretend to analyze that
restatement?
Why do you say "what is your intent", when you mean "is this what you
mean"?
He *explained what he meant by "differentially", and you removed it.
Why? Redefining someone's (standard) use of a word when he already
spells it out for you does not lead to comprehension!
<snip>
backspace
> But
> selection, in this case, simply means that the same environment
> *differentially* impacts or *causes* a significant difference in
> reproductive success in two organisms with different phenotypes, such
> that one phenotype has a significantly higher level of reproductive
> success than the other. This must be determined by examining two
> populations that differ in phenotype (particularly for qualitative
> differences) or (for quantitative traits) by examining the correlation
> of the amounts of that quantitative trait in a population with level
> of reproductive success.
rephrased:
>Two organisms respond differently to the same environment. There could be any multitude of reasons for this such
>as genes or just plain luck.
See no "selections" and nothing gets naturaled.
>the environment does not produce a differential or selective effect.
Depends what is your intent with differential and "selective effect".
Your sentence has no pragmatics.
hersheyhv
> On Jun 25, 3:31 am, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > But
> > selection, in this case, simply means that the same environment
> > *differentially* impacts or *causes* a significant difference in
> > reproductive success in two organisms with different phenotypes, such
> > that one phenotype has a significantly higher level of reproductive
> > success than the other. This must be determined by examining two
> > populations that differ in phenotype (particularly for qualitative
> > differences) or (for quantitative traits) by examining the correlation
> > of the amounts of that quantitative trait in a population with level
> > of reproductive success.
>
> rephrased:>Two organisms respond differently to the same environment. There could be any multitude of reasons for this such
> >as genes or just plain luck.
And, as I clearly pointed out, the way to distinguish whether
different phenotypes are *differentially* affected by the environment
(as measured by some metric of reproductive success) is by examining
two *populations*, not two *organisms*. If the two *populations* have
the *same* (that is, not statistically significantly different)
response to the environment (same mean on the measure of reproductive
success), then we say that there is no NS and that any difference can
be entirely accounted for by "chance" or "just plain luck". If, OTOH,
the two *populations* do show a statistically significant difference
on the metric of reproductive success, that means that there is a
*causal* or *correlational* relationship between phenotype in that
environment and reproductive success. That is, the environment's
interaction with these phenotypes *causes* a *selective* or
*discriminative* bias wrt reproductive success.
To the extent that the phenotypes examined are *caused* by genetic
differences, then the environment causes a *selective bias* that is
*selecting for* or *favors* the reproductive success of one set of
genes relative to the other.
Such a study cannot be performed with just two *organisms*. You
cannot determine statistical values with an n of 1 for each phenotype.
> See no "selections" and nothing gets naturaled.
When there is an observed consequence of a significant difference in
the reproductive success of one phenotype relative to the other, it is
perfectly clear that this is due to a *selective* bias in favor of one
relative to the other wrt reproductive success in that environment.
The selective bias wrt reproductive success is a consequence of and
thus caused by the environment's impact on these phenotypes. This is
the common meaning of 'selection' in your world, isn't it? If not,
how do you define "selection"? By saying that "selection" requires an
intelligent selector entity? That would be merely word games, since
it is clearly possible for a dumb, unintelligent environment (or some
environmental factor, such as temperature) to have a *discriminative*
or *selective* effect even if you refused to call it "selection".
Darwin, of course, used the term "natural" as a descriptive adjective
(not a verb) modifying the word 'selection' specifically in contrast
to the descriptive adjective "artificial". Selection occurs in both
cases. But "artificial" selection (animal or plant breeding or
eugenics) involves 'intelligently' [I am being somewhat ironic here,
since most such selection is done not to optimize the fitness of the
modified organism but to produce organisms that would not survive in
nature but are useful to the artificer] designed and implemented
selection rather than selection that would occur in the absence of an
artificer (the intelligent designer).
Perhaps you are denying the possiblity of any *selection* occurring
without the presence of an artificer or selector entity? Then it is
your responsibility to demonstrate the existence of this entity when
none is observed by any methodology I know of. It is clear that man
is the 'artificer' or 'selector entity' when Darwin described
"artificial" selection. But who or what (and what evidence do you
have for it) is the 'artificer' or 'selector entity' when humans are
not involved?
> >the environment does not produce a differential or selective effect.
>
> Depends what is your intent with differential and "selective effect".
> Your sentence has no pragmatics.
The above is a dishonest bit of unmarked snipping (not even including
the full sentence) without including even an ellipsis. Clearly, *if*
you had included the rest of this sentence, it would point out that NS
is not a necessary consequence of two different phenotypes. That
sometime (actually often if you look at sequence differences as
phenotypes) there is no significant difference in reproductive success
in a particular environment. Two phenotypes can be selective neutral
wrt one another with any observed differences between the two
populations being easily explainable as expected from chance alone.
That is, in fact, the null hypothesis. [You have heard of 'null
hypothesis', haven't you?]
Cory Albrecht
> Why do you restate someone's post, and then pretend to analyze that
> restatement?
Back in preschool when they were doing colours, d'ya think that
backspace asked who first used the term "red" and what were that
person's pragmatics when they used that term to refer to item that
reflected 650 nanometre wavelength light? How long did he argue with his
teacher about it while all the other toddler in his class just said "We
all know what 'red' is, now shut up so we can have snack time"?
Max
> On Jun 21, 7:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Survival of the fittest means what? That depends on your pragmatics.
> > > If a general uses it to rally the troops knowing he is making
> > > tautological statements in the heat of battle nobody is going to hold
> > > it against him. But in these five versions of Survival of the Fittest
> > > we simply don't know what is their pragmatics, but we can ask them.
> > What is in your pragmatics? What makes you think that the people quoted
> > here (including me) have any different views on the meaning of "survival
> > of the fittest"?
>
> But what is the meaning of "survival of the fittest"? What was
> Mussolini's pragmatics with it as he repeated it over and over in his
> speeches? Don't you understand "Survival of the fittest" is simply the
> combination of four letters and has absolutely no meaning without
> intent. Every single sentence we write must have intent or pragmatics.
> You are using this phrase so you tell me what exactly is your intent
> with Survival of the Fittest. Nextime your biology instructor starts
> "naturaling" stuff ask him what is his intent. The third time you ask
> him he will throw you out of the class. You see these indoctrinations
> into materialism is rigged in the following manner - make sentences
> with semantics, grammar and syntax but no pragmatics and then sit back
> and watch the brueha as evolutionists, IDsts and Creationists all
> waste their time refuting "evolution" a term that has no meaning
> without intent.
> <snip>
I'm sorry, but I don't know your intent in writing any of this so it's
all Greek to me.
Max
>
> <snip>
>
> Now please give me Darwin's intent what was his pragmatics in your own
> words in plain English.
Whereupon you would claim it is just that individuals personal Theory
of Natural Selection and not Darwin's and the ugly circle would start
again. It's like the creationists sent their crazy kid brother to hoot
and holler and make a fool of himself here to distract the Darwinists
while they craft their next dastardly plan.
Max
>
> <snip>
>
> When you refer to "biology" what is your pragmatics. Are you refering
> to genes as a language or to Darwin's fascination with cows making
> baby cows not knowing that genes as a laguage is responsable for this.
> "Biology" could really mean anything, you must define for me "Biology"
When you write "what is your pragmatics", what is your pragmatics. You
must define for us this term.
backspace
> > When you refer to "biology" what is your pragmatics. Are you refering
> > to genes as a language or to Darwin's fascination with cows making
> > baby cows not knowing that genes as a laguage is responsable for this.
> > "Biology" could really mean anything, you must define for me "Biology"
> > - what is your intent with this word?
>
> When you write "what is your pragmatics", what is your pragmatics. You
> must define for us this term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics now follow the link at the
bottom Dan Sperber discusses pragmatics and listen to the audio
recording from http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/LanguagInAction.html
to understand that everything you say must have Grammar, Syntax,
Semantics and Pragmatics or you are not making a sentence.
Like Dr.Wilkins who expects me to show the terms he used "... are not
interpretable..." It is a wonderful three-shell game of words the
evolutionists are using like "differential reproductive success"
instead of just saying "..the dog had puppies..." then they sit back
and expect everybody else to disprove what their sentences which only
has Syntax, Semantics and Grammar but no Pragmatics. Dr.Wilkins must
make clear his intent with his egg-dance surrounding Survival of the
Fittest.
hersheyhv
> On Jun 28, 3:49 am, Max <maxdw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When you refer to "biology" what is your pragmatics. Are you refering
> > > to genes as a language or to Darwin's fascination with cows making
> > > baby cows not knowing that genes as a laguage is responsable for this.
> > > "Biology" could really mean anything, you must define for me "Biology"
> > > - what is your intent with this word?
>
> > When you write "what is your pragmatics", what is your pragmatics. You
> > must define for us this term.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics now follow the link at the
> bottom Dan Sperber discusses pragmatics and listen to the audio
> to understand that everything you say must have Grammar, Syntax,
> Semantics and Pragmatics or you are not making a sentence.
>
> Like Dr.Wilkins who expects me to show the terms he used "... are not
> interpretable..." It is a wonderful three-shell game of words the
> evolutionists are using like "differential reproductive success"
> instead of just saying "..the dog had puppies..."
The word "differential" is not captured in the phrase "...the dog had
puppies". Try again. You do seem to have a problem with a severe
lack of pragmatic competence.