Evolution confuses an observation with a theory
backspace
the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
change or how they did so in the past.
Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
will fall to the ground is just restating the observation. The actuall
theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared. This theory
was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
established it. In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
Well obviously there is no such person, since that statement merely
equivocates the observation with an adhoc invented word "evolution".
We might be able to track down the first publication of it though, and
it will probably be an arbitrary decree by that person's authority as
Darwin's great defender. In contrast Newton did'nt establish his laws
by his "authority", he at the very least provided a well reasoned
description.
The word "gravity" is a word that we use to state the observation of
objects falling to the ground. But there is no confusion about this
word. In "The Theory of Evolution" we have confusion with the word
"evolution" since its antonym is "devolution" implying some sort of
consciouss directionality to the process we observe: allele
frequencies and population changes. And then ofcourse a whole
fruitsalad of words gets mixed in "natural", "selection", "micro",
"macro" with this obvious observation that populations change. But why
do they change? Because they survived? Well if they did'nt survive
they would'nt be there in the first place. Survival is an effect. The
theory must explain why they survive. Darwin stated that "Natural
Selection" is "Survival of the Fittest", just restating the obvious
fact that creatures have survived.
And to be able to at least start specifying the problem we need to use
the correct tools and that will be the language that genes code for.
The genes molecule are seperate from the language it expresses.
Slimebot McGoo
wrote:
>>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution "In biology, evolution is
>the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
>generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
>populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
>change or how they did so in the past.
>
>Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
>ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
>will fall to the ground is just restating the observation. The actuall
>theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
>objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared. This theory
>was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
>established it. In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
>established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
Why do you accept the difference between the fact and the theory of
gravity but ignore the same difference for evolution and the theory of
evolution? Why does evolution get special treatment in your so-called
mind? You're not biased against it, are you?
Nah, that would be stupid and dishonest.
McGoo
richardal...@googlemail.com
> >Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"In biology, evolution is
>
> the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> change or how they did so in the past.
Quite so.
It's a phenomenon we observe in nature which we call "evolution".
Evolutionary theory explains how it happens.
>
> Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
> ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
> will fall to the ground is just restating the observation.
Nope. It's telling you what gravity theory predicts, which means that
you can test the theory by observation.
> The actuall
> theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
> objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared.
This is a mathematical expression of the attraction between two
objects, which is a phenomenon which gravity theory attempts to
explain.
> This theory
> was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
> established it.
What we don't know is who attached the label "gravity" to the
phenomenon we observe. More to the point, the original formulation has
had to change as the evidence showed that it does not apply in all
conditions.
> In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
> established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
Who was the person who established the meaining of "gravity"?
> Well obviously there is no such person, since that statement merely
> equivocates the observation with an adhoc invented word "evolution".
> We might be able to track down the first publication of it though, and
> it will probably be an arbitrary decree by that person's authority as
> Darwin's great defender. In contrast Newton did'nt establish his laws
> by his "authority", he at the very least provided a well reasoned
> description.
Evidently you have not bothered to read "The Origin of Species".
What's the point in providing you with useful advice if you ignore it?
>
> The word "gravity" is a word that we use to state the observation of
> objects falling to the ground. But there is no confusion about this
> word. In "The Theory of Evolution" we have confusion with the word
> "evolution" since its antonym is "devolution" implying some sort of
> consciouss directionality to the process we observe: allele
> frequencies and population changes. And then ofcourse a whole
> fruitsalad of words gets mixed in "natural", "selection", "micro",
> "macro" with this obvious observation that populations change. But why
> do they change? Because they survived? Well if they did'nt survive
> they would'nt be there in the first place. Survival is an effect. The
> theory must explain why they survive. Darwin stated that "Natural
> Selection" is "Survival of the Fittest", just restating the obvious
> fact that creatures have survived.
>
> And to be able to at least start specifying the problem we need to use
> the correct tools and that will be the language that genes code for.
> The genes molecule are seperate from the language it expresses.
What a load of utter bullshit.
RF
Thurisaz the Einherjer
>>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution "In biology, evolution is
> the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> change or how they did so in the past.
And this is why there's a distinction between the fact and the theory of
evolution, dumbarse.
Welcome to reality.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
backspace
<MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> assbackwards:
>
> >>Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"In biology, evolution is
> > the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> > generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> > populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> > change or how they did so in the past.
> And this is why there's a distinction between the fact and the theory of
> evolution
Let me clarify then:
Evolution is the change in allele frequency of genes. Restated the
change in allele frequency of genes which we observe has been
arbitrarily equivocated with the word "evolution". It could have been
any word though. The word "evolution" functions as a proxy for the
observation that allele freqeuencies change, but this doesn't explain
why it changes. A theory must now provide some sort of independant
description of the changes in allele frequency like the periodic table
allows us to specify rocks in term of silica atoms and nuclear fusion
allows us to develop a theory of how the sun shines.A few decades ago
we had absolutely no idea as why to the actuall processes that we
experience as heat from the sun. It had to await the discovery of
nuclear theory. In the same way only recently with the discovery of
genes not being like a language but actually is a language we are now
able to at least attempt an independant specification of allele
frequency changes. Up till now it had only been an observation
equivocate with the word "evolution". Darwin was'nt even able to
specify the problem in the same way that pre Newton calculus nobody
could explain why we experiance heat from the sun.
Darwin's repetive chanting of "mutations" ,
"adaptations" ,"variations", "survival" was mearly repeating the
observation and equivocating it with a word he arbitrarily chose:
Evolution. Since he did'nt know about genes he could'nt even specify
the problem. Pre Mendelev all we could say was that a rock is "hard",
there was no way to independantly specify why a rock is hard. This had
to await the periodic table.If only Darwin would have used the word
"expialidosis" to equivocate his observations that fleas survived and
not hijack a perfectly normal very pleasing sounding
word:"Evolution".The word "Evolution" means upwards progressive change
towards a higher goal as its antonym "devolution" indicates. By Darwin
equovocating his observation that fleas "survived" with the word
"Evolution" he gave fleas a "directionality" dimension. This
directionality is further strenghtened by the word "selection". By
equivocating his observations of cows mooing and sheep pooping with
the word "selection" he anthromorphosized nature. Nature now became a
cause in and of itself a form of pantheism.
What Darwin called the Theory of Evolution never independantly
specified why cows survive, but merely restated the observation and
equivocated it with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution". The fundamental
flaw in ID/Creationsists counter arguments to the "Theory of
Evolution" and it associated words "adaptations", "variations",
"micro", "macro" is that they assume it actually is a theory instead
of a restatement of an observation equivocated with the phrase:"The
Theory of Evolution".
Trying to "refute" the "Theory of Evolution" you in essence are
stateing that cows did'nt survive, or allele frequencies don't change
or whatever arbitrary observation evolutionists equivocate with the
phrase:"The Theory of Evolution". AFter the discovery of genes the
materialists or Darwinists arbitrarily equivocated their observation
of the change in allele frequencies with the phrase:"Theory of
Evolution". Before the discovery of genes Darwin equivocated the
phrase "Theory of Evolution" with his observation that finches beaks
change and cows surviving. Using the same phrase "Theory of Evolution"
for "allele frequency changes" and "change in populations inherited
traits" is tantamount to using the phrase "Phlogiston Theory" for
observations Einstein explained under "Relativity Theory". "Relativity
Theory" and "Phlogiston Theory" are rightfully two seperate phrases to
describe seperate theories.
And the same argument extends to the phrase "Natural Selection".
"Natural Selection" used in 1859 can't possibly mean the same thing as
used in the Journal of Theoretical Biology of 2007 nearly 150 years
later. Darwin stated that "Natural Selection" is just a diffent way of
stating "Survival of the Fittest". And Dr.Wilkins a noted Evolutionist
calls Survival of the fittest a tautology - which it obvously is. It
simply restates one word in terms of another, it is a circular
argument. Natural Selection functions in modern biology as some sort
of universal mechanism, which is just as implausable as having a
universal differential equation explaining all of physics.
It is therefore irrational to state that the theory of evolution is
"Godless" like http://www.uncommondescent.com Davescot does. Because
the four words in the phrase:"The Theory of Evolution" equivocated
with the observation that cows survived means calling "The Theory of
Evolution" - 'Godless' that the event of cows surviving is itself
'Godless'.
Mark Nutter
> >Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"In biology, evolution is
> the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> change or how they did so in the past.
Let's see, you start to explore the meaning of the term "evolution,"
and then stop short of a full discussion of what science has found
with regards to evolution, and then complain that your partial
presentation of the beginning of a definition of evolution is
inadequate? I smell a straw man.
Darwin's theory was that the environment of a given population would
have an influence on which members of the population made the greatest
contribution to the next generation, in terms of inherited
characteristics. He called it "natural selection" specifically because
he was making the analogy to the way farmers and other plant/animal
breeders produced changes in the characteristics of domestic species
by artificially selecting the traits they wanted to promote. Thus,
Darwin's theory *began* with a proposed explanation, i.e. that natural
selection acting on natural variation tended to influence the
development of a population's inherited characteristics, leading
ultimately to enough differentiation to justify dividing the
population into separate species.
Darwin is famous because there is so much real-world evidence which is
consistent with the explanation he proposed to account for the
observation. The explanation and the observation are related, in that
the former explains the latter, but the distinction between the two is
quite clear and easy to understand, should one have the desire to do
so.
m
Slimebot McGoo
wrote:
>On May 21, 6:30 pm, Thurisaz the Einherjer
><MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>> assbackwards:
>>
>> >>Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"In biology, evolution is
>> > the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
>> > generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
>> > populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
>> > change or how they did so in the past.
>
>> And this is why there's a distinction between the fact and the theory of
>> evolution
>
>Let me clarify then:
[snip nonsense]
1. You don't have a clue what you're saying.
2. "Equivocate" doesn't mean what you think it does.
3. Who turns on your computer for you?
McGoo
Bobby Bryant
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes:
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution "In biology, evolution
> is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> change or how they did so in the past.
Sure, a definition of "evolution" is a way of saying what evolution
is. How could it be otherwise?
And why should it not be independent of any theoretical mechanism?
And are you unaware that we _do_ have a theory of why they change and
how they did in the past?
> Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
> ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
> will fall to the ground is just restating the observation. The actuall
> theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
> objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared. This theory
> was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
> established it. In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
> established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
> Well obviously there is no such person, since that statement merely
> equivocates the observation with an adhoc invented word "evolution".
> We might be able to track down the first publication of it though, and
> it will probably be an arbitrary decree by that person's authority as
> Darwin's great defender. In contrast Newton did'nt establish his laws
> by his "authority", he at the very least provided a well reasoned
> description.
Yes -- and only a description. IMO Newton's laws are at the low end
of what we can call a theory, because they don't tell us how and why
gravity works: they merely describe its effect rigorously.
> The word "gravity" is a word that we use to state the observation of
> objects falling to the ground. But there is no confusion about this
> word. In "The Theory of Evolution" we have confusion with the word
> "evolution" since its antonym is "devolution" implying some sort of
> consciouss directionality to the process we observe: allele
> frequencies and population changes.
It sounds like the confusion is of your own making.
> And then ofcourse a whole fruitsalad of words gets mixed in
> "natural", "selection", "micro", "macro" with this obvious
> observation that populations change. But why do they change? Because
> they survived? Well if they did'nt survive they would'nt be there in
> the first place. Survival is an effect. The theory must explain why
> they survive. Darwin stated that "Natural Selection" is "Survival of
> the Fittest", just restating the obvious fact that creatures have
> survived.
That catchphrase is indeed an overly simplistic way of stating it, but
it's not as bad as you seem to think: it indicates that there is a
_reason_ for the fact that some creatures have survived and others
have not.
> And to be able to at least start specifying the problem we need to
> use the correct tools and that will be the language that genes code
> for. The genes molecule are seperate from the language it
> expresses.
Huh?
...
FWIW, I also don't much care for the definition of evolution as a
change of allele frequencies, because it leaves me wondering what I
should call the thing that Lamarck was trying to explain two centuries
ago when nothing was known about alleles and their frequencies. But
you seem to be confusing your terminological quibbles with a lack of
substance in the theory, which is utterly wrong. You should try to
learn something about it rather than trying to find an excuse for
rejecting it.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
John Wilkins
>...And Dr.Wilkins a noted Evolutionist
> calls Survival of the fittest a tautology - which it obvously is. It
> simply restates one word in terms of another, it is a circular
> argument.
First of all, what you have described is called a "definition", not a
circular argument. A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is
used as a premise, which it clearly is not in the case of natural
selection.
Second, "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.
Third, I truly hope you mean Adam S. Wilkins, who *is* a notable
evolutionary biologist. All I am noted for is bad puns. If so, please
give a reference.
--
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."
Thurisaz the Einherjer
mask your cluelessness with loads of verbal bullshit.
JQ
> >Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"In biology, evolution is
>
> the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> change or how they did so in the past.
You don't read much, do you? I suggest The Blind Watchmaker and The
Selfish Gene by Dawkins. (By the way, wikipedia is about the worst
source of info you can use. Track down where the wiki author got their
info, and cite them instead next time.)
>
> Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
> ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
> will fall to the ground is just restating the observation. The actuall
> theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
> objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared. This theory
> was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
> established it. In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
> established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
> Well obviously there is no such person, since that statement merely
> equivocates the observation with an adhoc invented word "evolution".
> We might be able to track down the first publication of it though, and
> it will probably be an arbitrary decree by that person's authority as
> Darwin's great defender.
So... after admitting that you don't know the first publication, or
the author, and demonstrating that you don't understand evolutionary
theory, you accuse the unidentified author of 'probably' not using
scientific method? Where did you get that conclusion from?
In contrast Newton did'nt establish his laws
> by his "authority", he at the very least provided a well reasoned
> description.
Oh dear, you really don't read much, do you? There are thousands of
books providing a 'well reasoned description' for evolution, aspects
of evolution, evolution for beginners, pet evolutionary theories...
>
> The word "gravity" is a word that we use to state the observation of
> objects falling to the ground. But there is no confusion about this
> word. In "The Theory of Evolution" we have confusion with the word
> "evolution" since its antonym is "devolution" implying some sort of
> consciouss directionality to the process we observe: allele
> frequencies and population changes.
Yes, a lot of anti-evolutionists do try to promote that misconception.
It is an unfortunate fluke of the English language.
And then ofcourse a whole
> fruitsalad of words gets mixed in "natural", "selection", "micro",
> "macro" with this obvious observation that populations change.
It's only people who are seriously against evolution, or who have been
duped by those who are, that will try to convince you of any real
difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.
But why
> do they change? Because they survived? Well if they did'nt survive
> they would'nt be there in the first place.
Yes. I'm glad you understand that much.
Survival is an effect. The
> theory must explain why they survive. Darwin stated that "Natural
> Selection" is "Survival of the Fittest", just restating the obvious
> fact that creatures have survived.
If evolution is so 'obvious', why the antagonism? here's the very
simplified version of the theory:
- The form and behaviour of a creature is determined by its genes (and
possibly its parents genes to a slight degree as far as their
behaviour and influence of a developing ebryo etc. goes, but lets not
get into that).
- Some creatures are more likely to survive than others, based on
their behaviour and physical characteristics. This is heavily
influenced by their genes.
- Genes are hereditory. Accepting that not all creatures will survive
to reproduce, genes which equip their hosts to reproduce for a large
number of generations will occupy more bodies and come to dominate the
gene pool (unless conditions significantly change).
Following so far? Okay, here's the bit that people seem to have
trouble over:
- Genes are not always copied perfectly. Sometimes an altered gene
(new mutation) will have phenotypic effects. If the gene increases the
chances of survival to reproduction and ability to reproduce in its
hosts, it will spread throughout the population (assuming that the
original host is not very unlucky).
Of course, Darwin didn't say exactly that because he didn't know what
DNA did. The theory has undergone a lot of change since his death. The
'natural selection' bit is simply that the environment itself imposes
restrictions and obstacles that make some creatures more likely to
survive than others.
Yes, it is obvious when spelled out, so I don't see why some people
are so against it. Your main argument seems to be that because it is
obvious, it must be wrong. Am I following this correctly?
>
> And to be able to at least start specifying the problem we need to use
> the correct tools and that will be the language that genes code for.
> The genes molecule are seperate from the language it expresses.
And letters are separate from the ideas that words represent. So what?
The gene is still the hereditary determining factor.
Steven J.
> >Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"In biology, evolution is
>
> the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> change or how they did so in the past.
>
being biologically inheritable. The average weight, and the
percentage of obese adults, among the U.S. population has increased in
recent decades, but very few people think that this is the result of
genetic or otherwise inheritable change. Other, more complex and
subtle examples could be suggested, so noting that change in a
population is due to a change in the frequency of inheritable traits
is, itself, a theory about what causes the population to change. This
is not a trivial point, IMHO; Darwin went to a lot of trouble to point
out that different breeds of dogs, cattle, and pigeons existed because
minor individual differences could, in many cases to some extent, be
inherited and accumulated.
>
> Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
> ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
> will fall to the ground is just restating the observation. The actuall
> theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
> objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared. This theory
> was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
> established it. In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
> established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
>
Creationists, it seems to me, are fond of dreaming up entirely
irrelevant criteria for judging theories; another one kept arguing
that "tangible benefits" (e.g. blowing up cities, getting better gas
mileage) were better and more conclusive tests of a theory than, e.g.
predicting the relative similarities of proteins and genes among
multiple species. You, for your part, seem to think that having a
household name associated with every major feature of a theory is some
test of its validity. I can think of no reason to take this criterion
seriously.
>
> Well obviously there is no such person, since that statement merely
> equivocates the observation with an adhoc invented word "evolution".
> We might be able to track down the first publication of it though, and
> it will probably be an arbitrary decree by that person's authority as
> Darwin's great defender. In contrast Newton did'nt establish his laws
> by his "authority", he at the very least provided a well reasoned
> description.
>
opinion is worth, I have some doubt about the value of the definition
of "evolution" as "change in allele frequencies;" at least, the non-
coding regulatory sequences scattered through the genome aren't
usually counted as "genes," and therefore, presumably, variations in
them are not counted as "alleles," yet variations in them are
important to phenotype, inheritable, and subject to natural selection.
>
> The word "gravity" is a word that we use to state the observation of
> objects falling to the ground. But there is no confusion about this
> word. In "The Theory of Evolution" we have confusion with the word
> "evolution" since its antonym is "devolution" implying some sort of
> consciouss directionality to the process we observe: allele
> frequencies and population changes. And then ofcourse a whole
> fruitsalad of words gets mixed in "natural", "selection", "micro",
> "macro" with this obvious observation that populations change. But why
> do they change? Because they survived? Well if they did'nt survive
> they would'nt be there in the first place. Survival is an effect. The
> theory must explain why they survive. Darwin stated that "Natural
> Selection" is "Survival of the Fittest", just restating the obvious
> fact that creatures have survived.
>
course). By the way, the opposite of "evolution" is "stasis," not
"devolution" (which refers to transfer of powers from a higher level
of government to a lower level). Or, if you wish to complain that the
idea (not the word) "evolution" has inherited from its Lamarckian days
the idea of "progress" (no matter how often evolutionists try to tell
people that there is no inherent tendency in evolution towards greater
complexity or sophistication), then the antonym would be "regress." I
don't think this confusion would be ameliorated by using a different
word to mean "change in the frequency of inheritable traits in a
population over time."
Darwin's point, of course, was that in every generation some
individuals leave descendants ("survive") and others do not, and that
the survivors are not a random sampling of the population. Why
different traits survive is different for every population (otherwise,
presumably, there'd be one species on the planet, since only one set
of traits would be "fit"). Evolutionary theory, though, is not about
why particular individuals survive and others do not (there are many
studies in the behavior and ecology of individual species that deal
with such questions), but about the effects of differential
reproductive success upon a population. Again, you seem insistent on
judging a theory by an irrelevant criterion.
>
> And to be able to at least start specifying the problem we need to use
> the correct tools and that will be the language that genes code for.
> The genes molecule are seperate from the language it expresses.
>
Genes code for proteins, not a language.
-- Steven J.
Ross Langerak
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179763491....@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution "In biology, evolution is
> the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> change or how they did so in the past.
You are confusing the process of evolution - the change and proliferation of
species over time - and the theory of evolution which explains that change.
> Lets take gravity for example. We observe objects falling to the
> ground. Telling me that the Theory of Gravity predicts that objects
> will fall to the ground is just restating the observation.
As with evolution, you are confusing gravitational force with the theory of
gravity that explains how that force works.
> The actuall
> theory derived by a human being states that the pull between two
> objects is inversly proportional to the radius squared.
Actually, that would be the a law of gravity: a relationship that has always
been found to be true.
> This theory
> was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we know exactly who
> established it. In contrast I still don't know who is this peson that
> established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
> Well obviously there is no such person, since that statement merely
> equivocates the observation with an adhoc invented word "evolution".
> We might be able to track down the first publication of it though, and
> it will probably be an arbitrary decree by that person's authority as
> Darwin's great defender. In contrast Newton did'nt establish his laws
> by his "authority", he at the very least provided a well reasoned
> description.
Genes determine the outward appearance of an individual or species. Based
upon the fossil record, we know that the outward appearance of many species
has changed over time. Thus, the genetic makeup of these species must have
changed as well.
Personally, I don't think the definition of evolution as a change in gene or
allele frequencies is adequate. To produce the physical changes that most
of us associate with evolution requires a change in the function of the
genes within a species. Otherwise, there really are limits to how far a
species can change. However, you objection only serves to expose the
difficulty of transitioning from a physical definition of evolution to a
genetic definition.
> The word "gravity" is a word that we use to state the observation of
> objects falling to the ground. But there is no confusion about this
> word.
Oddly enough, you seem to be confused about gravity. Gravity is a force,
and it acts on an object even when it is not falling.
> In "The Theory of Evolution" we have confusion with the word
> "evolution" since its antonym is "devolution" implying some sort of
> consciouss directionality to the process we observe: allele
> frequencies and population changes. And then ofcourse a whole
> fruitsalad of words gets mixed in "natural", "selection", "micro",
> "macro" with this obvious observation that populations change. But why
> do they change? Because they survived? Well if they did'nt survive
> they would'nt be there in the first place. Survival is an effect. The
> theory must explain why they survive. Darwin stated that "Natural
> Selection" is "Survival of the Fittest", just restating the obvious
> fact that creatures have survived.
Scientists define fitness in terms of heritable characteristics such as
size, speed, camouflage, rate of reproduction. It is these characteristics
that allow individuals and species to survive (to reproduce). Evolution
explains how species are able to adapt to new and changing environments.
> And to be able to at least start specifying the problem we need to use
> the correct tools and that will be the language that genes code for.
> The genes molecule are seperate from the language it expresses.
Huh?
backspace
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote inter alia:
> First of all, what you have described is called a "definition", not a
> circular argument. A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is
> used as a premise, which it clearly is not in the case of natural
> selection.
> Second, "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.
> Third, I truly hope you mean Adam S. Wilkins, who *is* a notable
> evolutionary biologist. All I am noted for is bad puns. If so, please
> give a reference.
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."
>From http://www.dictionary.com "..Philosophy. any theory that regards will as the fundamental agency or principle, in metaphysics,epistemology, or pschology."
Synonym for will is "choice" which implies consciousness. To rephrase
your sentence:"...Many were worried about the consciousness
implications of the use of the term "selection"...."
Dr. Wilkins allow me to kindly point out to you that it would at least
seem you are contradicting yourself. You are using weasel words and
dancing around this obviously deeply embarrasing phrase:"Survival of
the Fittest". If "Survival of the Fittest" is not a tautology then
rephrase it so that it is a tautology. The concept of a tautology is
well understood, and the Theory of Evolution is not exempt from being
phrased in a tautological manner. It seems though sir that you are
making a lot of assumptions like your previous factual error that
Artificial Selection as a phrase existed before Darwin coined the term
in 1859. I double check everything and am busy tracking down every
single weasel word in evolution such as "Reproductive success" to find
out who exactly was this person that coined the phrase and what did he
mean it. There is confusion over terms amongst evolutionists
themselves like for example Chris Colby stating NS is an effect and
others telling me it is both a cause and effect and yet others telling
me it is not an cause but a "mechanism". I am still not able to fully
deduce your view on NS, so allow me ask you again:
Is Natural Selection a cause or an effect? If it is an effect , then
what is the cause? Under alias TongueSpeaker I have left comments in
talk section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success
John Wilkins
> On May 22, 4:07 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote inter alia:
> > First of all, what you have described is called a "definition", not a
> > circular argument. A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is
> > used as a premise, which it clearly is not in the case of natural
> > selection.
> > Second, "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.
>
> > Third, I truly hope you mean Adam S. Wilkins, who *is* a notable
> > evolutionary biologist. All I am noted for is bad puns. If so, please
> > give a reference.
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a1
> 27281a8/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."
For your edification and to make things easier for you, I have
highlighted the crucial phrase with underscores. I hope this helps you
*read* what I said...
>
> >From http://www.dictionary.com "..Philosophy. any theory that regards
will as the fundamental agency or principle, in
metaphysics,epistemology, or pschology."
> Synonym for will is "choice" which implies consciousness. To rephrase
> your sentence:"...Many were worried about the consciousness
> implications of the use of the term "selection"...."
No. Voluntaristic means that it implies agency, conscious or not. If you
use a term of agency, it is a *psychological* leap to inferring a
conscious agent. This is why "natural selection" was not good use for
ordinary language users to understand natural selection (and you are
clearly an ordinary language user in this respect). SotF was a problem
for the implication, but not the fact, that it was a tautology. It
isn't.
Neither term is wholly satisfactory, but not because there is a problem
with natural selection, but with ordinary *language*. This is why NS is
now a mathematical equation, which doesn't have those problems of
implications and connotations of ordinary language. Reality is about
facts not language.
I have previously thrice listed these equations. You can harp on the
linguistic meanings all you like - it is a problem with your
understanding of natural selection, not with natural selection itself.
>
> Dr. Wilkins allow me to kindly point out to you that it would at least
> seem you are contradicting yourself. You are using weasel words and
> dancing around this obviously deeply embarrasing phrase:"Survival of
> the Fittest". If "Survival of the Fittest" is not a tautology then
> rephrase it so that it is a tautology. The concept of a tautology is
> well understood, and the Theory of Evolution is not exempt from being
> phrased in a tautological manner. It seems though sir that you are
> making a lot of assumptions like your previous factual error that
> Artificial Selection as a phrase existed before Darwin coined the term
> in 1859. I double check everything and am busy tracking down every
> single weasel word in evolution such as "Reproductive success" to find
> out who exactly was this person that coined the phrase and what did he
> mean it. There is confusion over terms amongst evolutionists
> themselves like for example Chris Colby stating NS is an effect and
> others telling me it is both a cause and effect and yet others telling
> me it is not an cause but a "mechanism". I am still not able to fully
> deduce your view on NS, so allow me ask you again:
> Is Natural Selection a cause or an effect? If it is an effect , then
> what is the cause? Under alias TongueSpeaker I have left comments in
> talk section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success
The cause is, as many people have tried to get through to you,
environmental differential advantages to different heritable traits in a
population. This is sufficient to explain why one trait spreads to
fixation and others do not. If you don't get *that* then you have no
place criticising selection as a process.
I am not weaseling about anything. NS is not a tautology because a
tautology doesn't imply anything not included in the defining terms. But
NS when applied to a single case is no tautology, any more than when
*any* equation of science is applied in a single case. That is, it is
not a *logical* tautology; you can make it a *verbal* tautology if you
like, that is a fact about you, not it...
Kleuskes & Moos
> Who was the person who established the meaining of "gravity"?
A roman, most probably: "gravis", "gravitas" -> weight, weightynesss.
Both literally
and metaphorically. It's retained in english: "a grave error". In
dutch and german (for instance) it's
"Ein schwerer fehler", "een zware fout" -> "a heavy error".
backspace
>.Neither term is wholly satisfactory, but not because there is a problem with natural selection, but with ordinary
>*language*."
These sort of self-defeating statements is the same logical error
Gould made. He said:"... consciousness is an illusion created by the
brain." But that very sentence of Gould was created by his his brain
therefore he is stating that his brain consists of illusions and why
should we then believe a word he said including the statement itself?
And your statement is a a rephrasing of what Gould said. You made that
statement by your brain in a language and therefore there is a
"problem" with your language itself and a "problem" with everything
you state including the statement itself.
>I am not weaseling about anything. NS is not a tautology because a tautology doesn't imply anything not included in the
>defining terms.
And as stated under the thread "What Naturaled and who did the
Selecting"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/733affebf9ef9aca?lnk=st&q=&rnum=3#733affebf9ef9aca
I agree. Natural Selection is not a tautology it is nature as a force
with a mind all of its own. And if not then don't hijack the word
"selection". Just like Prof. Sapolsky should'nt use the word
"Evolution" to describe his process of something not having
directionality to it as he explained in Scientific American March 2003
and the word "mutation" should'nt be used in modern journals because
it can't mean the same thing Darwin meant by it since he did'nt know
about genes.
Darwin certainly had no clue what he meant by it when stateing that
"Survival of the Fittest" is "Natural Selection" because he could'nt
even specify the problem: Genes and life itself is not like a language
it is a language. Listen to the Perry Marshall audio I gave in this
thread. The basic problem is that Dawkins, Darwin, Gould have no idea
of what it is that they are trying to state. All they know is that
their metaphysical materialism must not be undermined. And they will
do this even to the point of making the English language itself
undefined. Apparantly I - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
- is the only YEC taking the position that everybody refuting
"Evolution" Dembski, Ken Ham and defending "Evolution" Dawkins, are
wasting their time, since the very phrases themselves at worst are not
defined and at best is restated as an equivocation with an
observation. No mechanistic theory is given of why organisms survive.
We might never even be able to because that would mean that we could
reduce "Life" itself to a mechanistic process.
The problem is far deeper then we have realised. We essentially are
asking: What is Life? And the phrase "Theory of Evolution" could just
as well have been "Theory of Everything". Given your materialist
premises you in a sense have to explain everything so as to prevent a
Deity foothold in the door as the ex head of Harvard put after he
himself reaped the intolerance that he sowed. We can't apriori
predetermine the form the answer must take. My only constraint on
metaphysical discussions would be some sort of falsification test.
Some believe in reincarnation, others that they are space aliens from
the planet Xeno. There is no way of falsifying such beliefs.
The theist position is that there are absolutes. Materialists that
everything is relative even morality. But taken to its full logical
conclusion it means that language, words and phrases becomes relative
to the point that they can mean anything you want it to mean. One
federal US judge said:"There are two kinds of truth, one for the
defendent and one for the claimant". This "evolution theory" whatever
it might be has not only led to a moralist relativism but a language
relativism. And if the very words we use become relative and
meaningless, we will have meaningless debates as this forum is ample
evidence off.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
far you clearly don't.
JQ
> On May 22, 10:43 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:>.Neither term is wholly satisfactory, but not because there is a problem with natural selection, but with ordinary
> >*language*."
>
> These sort of self-defeating statements is the same logical error
> Gould made. He said:"... consciousness is an illusion created by the
> brain." But that very sentence of Gould was created by his his brain
> therefore he is stating that his brain consists of illusions and why
> should we then believe a word he said including the statement itself?
> And your statement is a a rephrasing of what Gould said. You made that
> statement by your brain in a language and therefore there is a
> "problem" with your language itself and a "problem" with everything
> you state including the statement itself.
>
> >I am not weaseling about anything. NS is not a tautology because a tautology doesn't imply anything not included in the
> >defining terms.
>
> And as stated under the thread "What Naturaled and who did the
> I agree. Natural Selection is not a tautology it is nature as a force
> with a mind all of its own.
A mind of its own? Are you being poetic or trying to push some form of
ID?
> And if not then don't hijack the word
> "selection".
?? Are you implying that 'selection' should only be used to describe
conscious choice? Am I reading this right? If so, what word would you
suggest to use?
Just like Prof. Sapolsky should'nt use the word
> "Evolution" to describe his process of something not having
> directionality to it as he explained in Scientific American March 2003
> and the word "mutation" should'nt be used in modern journals because
> it can't mean the same thing Darwin meant by it since he did'nt know
> about genes.
So? Words change meaning over time and mean different thinks in
different contexts. Should we refrain from using most of the human
language? In case you haven't noticed, the theory has changed a bit
since Darwin.
>
> Darwin certainly had no clue what he meant by it when stateing that
> "Survival of the Fittest" is "Natural Selection" because he could'nt
> even specify the problem: Genes and life itself is not like a language
> it is a language.
Could you explain what you mean?
Listen to the Perry Marshall audio I gave in this
> thread. The basic problem is that Dawkins, Darwin, Gould have no idea
> of what it is that they are trying to state.
Have you ever read any of their books? I've seen half-page-long
definitions for terms in Dawkins' books, for instance.
All they know is that
> their metaphysical materialism must not be undermined.
Metaphysical materialism? What exactly does that mean?
And they will
> do this even to the point of making the English language itself
> undefined. Apparantly I -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> - is the only YEC taking the position that everybody refuting
> "Evolution" Dembski, Ken Ham and defending "Evolution" Dawkins, are
> wasting their time, since the very phrases themselves at worst are not
> defined and at best is restated as an equivocation with an
> observation. No mechanistic theory is given of why organisms survive.
These things are only briefly explained because they're obvious to
every person on the planet except, apparently, you. Stick insects who
look more like sticks than average are less likely to be seen and
eaten. Gazelle who can run faster than average are less likely to be
eaten by lions. Bullocks who can digest tougher grass than average are
going to have an easier time finding food on already well-grazed land.
How is that in any way complicated?
> We might never even be able to because that would mean that we could
> reduce "Life" itself to a mechanistic process.
Isn't it? I'm sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Are you suggesting that life is more than the interactions of
molecules in cells? Have I misunderstood what you meant by
'mechanistic'?
>
> The problem is far deeper then we have realised. We essentially are
> asking: What is Life? And the phrase "Theory of Evolution" could just
> as well have been "Theory of Everything". Given your materialist
> premises you in a sense have to explain everything so as to prevent a
> Deity foothold in the door as the ex head of Harvard put after he
> himself reaped the intolerance that he sowed. We can't apriori
> predetermine the form the answer must take. My only constraint on
> metaphysical discussions would be some sort of falsification test.
> Some believe in reincarnation, others that they are space aliens from
> the planet Xeno. There is no way of falsifying such beliefs.
>
> The theist position is that there are absolutes. Materialists that
> everything is relative even morality. But taken to its full logical
> conclusion it means that language, words and phrases becomes relative
> to the point that they can mean anything you want it to mean.
Words mean what we agree them to mean. Their meanings are totally
arbitrary. I wasn't aware that there was any disagreement over this.
When I say the word chair, we both think of the same object; this is
why it has meaning.
Words are only tools for communication. How is this a problem?
One
> federal US judge said:"There are two kinds of truth, one for the
> defendent and one for the claimant". This "evolution theory" whatever
> it might be has not only led to a moralist relativism but a language
> relativism. And if the very words we use become relative and
> meaningless, we will have meaningless debates as this forum is ample
> evidence off.
Words have the meanings we give them...
backspace
> On May 21, 12:04 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwin's theory was that the environment of a given population would
> have an influence on which members of the population made the greatest
> contribution to the next generation, in terms of inherited
> characteristics. He called it "natural selection" ....
He , you and the rest of the evolve world can call your observation
anything you want, but until you indpendantly specify your observation
not interms of the observatin itself it isn't a theory.
There are three fundamental logical flaws being made:
1) Equivocating an observation with an adhoc phrase such as "natural
selection" and then restating the observation as a theory. Any phrase
could have been chosen even "Aztec Cosmology"
2) Not defining the terms and not being able to tell me who
established your theory but engageing in Argument from Authority as
Darwins great defender.
3) Appeal to Abstract Authority: Telling me that "science" says so and
"science" does'nt say anything. The phrase "science says so" is used
for its rethorical effect when arguing from authority especially if
your materialist premises are threatened.
> by artificially selecting the traits they wanted to promote.
And "artificial selection is just another of Darwin's ad-hoc invented
phrases.
Darwin stated AS only once:
"Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest."
backspace
> FWIW, I also don't much care for the definition of evolution as a
> change of allele frequencies, because it leaves me wondering what I
> should call the thing that Lamarck was trying to explain two centuries
> ago when nothing was known about alleles and their frequencies. But
> you seem to be confusing your terminological quibbles with a lack of
> substance in the theory, which is utterly wrong. You should try to
> learn something about it rather than trying to find an excuse for
> rejecting it.
And until you define for "Theory" - without reformulating your
observation - that independantly specifies why allele frequencies
change I have no idea what I am supposed to reject.
You can call this theory anything you want even "Theory of Evolution"
if it will make you happy. We now await actuall theory of why allele
frequencies change. In the entire Biological literature there is not
even an attempt at an independant specification because we can't even
specify the problem.
Mark Nutter
> On May 22, 1:23 am, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 12:04 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Darwin's theory was that the environment of a given population would
> > have an influence on which members of the population made the greatest
> > contribution to the next generation, in terms of inherited
> > characteristics. He called it "natural selection" ....
>
> He , you and the rest of the evolve world can call your observation
> anything you want, but until you indpendantly specify your observation
> not interms of the observatin itself it isn't a theory.
What, you want theories that have no connection whatsoever to the real
world? What good would those be? *Useful* theories are those which
*do* describe what we can observe in the real world. I mean, that's
kind of the whole point.
> There are three fundamental logical flaws being made:
> 1) Equivocating an observation with an adhoc phrase such as "natural
> selection" and then restating the observation as a theory. Any phrase
> could have been chosen even "Aztec Cosmology"
The phrase "Aztec cosmology," however, would not be a meaningful
summary of the actual phenomenon being observed. *Useful* scientific
theories are meaningful, and their meaning is directly related to the
phenomenon being described. "Aztec cosmology" is not a meaningful
description of the influence the environment has on the propagation of
inherited characteristics from one generation to the next. "Natural
selection" *is* a meaningful description which precisely and
accurately describes the observation that the genetic makeup of a
population tends to maximize the characteristics which promote
successful reproduction, and to minimize those which inhibit
successful reproduction.
> 2) Not defining the terms and not being able to tell me who
> established your theory but engageing in Argument from Authority as
> Darwins great defender.
If it's so important to define one's terms, why have you not defined
what you mean by "theory" and "observation"? But as far as who
established the theory, the answer is that it is a collaborative and
ongoing effort. Many scientists, including a number of Christians, are
working together to discover the precise details of how evolutionary
mechanisms work. Darwin built on the works of others and made his own
contributions, to which later scientists have also added. But the
ultimate authority for all this observation and theorizing is the real
world itself. If you want to accuse me of appealing to reality, I will
gladly confess that I have done so and will continue to do so.
> 3) Appeal to Abstract Authority: Telling me that "science" says so and
> "science" does'nt say anything. The phrase "science says so" is used
> for its rethorical effect when arguing from authority especially if
> your materialist premises are threatened.
Heh, that reminds me of a definition. "Creationist: someone who will
accuse you of being a materialist if you interpret Genesis
spiritually."
Perhaps it escaped your notice, but I did not, in fact, tell you that
you should believe just because "science says so." Evolution is true
because the real world says so. You are admitting as much when you
claim that evolution is "just" an observation, and not a "theory." If
we are indeed observing evolution in the real world, then why even
debate about whether or not it's a theory? The fact of evolution is,
well, a fact, since we actually observe it in the real world.
Quibbling about words is pointless if we all know that the phenomenon
described by the word "evolution" is a phenomenon that we observe in
the real world.
> > by artificially selecting the traits they wanted to promote.
>
> And "artificial selection is just another of Darwin's ad-hoc invented
> phrases.
> Darwin stated AS only once:
It's irrelevant who invented the phrase. The practice it describes is
one that goes back thousands of years, and the term is both meaningful
and accurate: "artificial" means that it's something man does
deliberately, and "selection" means it works by men making choices
about which members of each generation get to breed to produce the
next one. Darwin's great insight was that conditions in nature can
serve the same function, making some individuals more likely to breed
and reproduce, and others less likely to do so.
This is a hypothesis, based on Darwin's observations. The reason it's
a hypothesis and not just an observation is because Darwin asserts
that this pattern is not just true of the specific observations he
himself made, but that it is a pattern which we should expect to find
to be true for all observations. We can test this hypothesis by making
more observations and seeing if the predicted pattern still holds
true. What's more, this pattern implies certain other features which
should exist in areas that may not even have been observed yet.
For example, Darwin's theory implies the existence of some kind of
biological structure like DNA, for encoding and passing on the genetic
information (with some variation) from one generation to the next. It
also implies that certain patterns of shared DNA sequences should
appear between different species, in a nested hierarchy of
relationships. This sort of thing was an implied consequence of
Darwin's theory decades before any significant work was done with
molecular genetics, and yet once would could observe DNA sequences, we
found the exact patterns predicted by Darwin's theory.
It's a bit late in the game to be trying to deny the fact of
evolution, especially when your only basis for doing so is an appeal
to the authority of men who don't know what they're talking about.
Remember, the Christian God does not show up in the real world--not
for you, not for me, not for believers or unbelievers or anybody. In
His absence, all you have to base your faith on are the stories,
superstitions, and subjective feelings of men. It is men who wrote the
Bible and it is men who tell you to believe that it is inspired. Any
time someone claims to tell you what God says, you'll notice that it
is a man speaking, and likely as not, quoting words that other men
have said or written. So before you start accusing people of Appealing
To Authority, take a minute and reflect on the "authority" you are
appealing to. What scientists tell us can be confirmed by real world
observations, but your arguments rest on the authority of uninspired
men alone.
m
backspace
> You are confusing the process of evolution - the change and proliferation of
> species over time - and the theory of evolution which explains that change.
that you keep on refering to as "evolution"?
Where is this theory that provides us with a mechanistic description
of life itself? Please provide me with the theory of evolution
without restating the observation that things have survived.
> Scientists define fitness in terms of heritable characteristics such as
> size, speed, camouflage, rate of reproduction. It is these characteristics
> that allow individuals and species to survive (to reproduce).
Again you are equivocating your observatoin of size, speed and
reproduction with an arbitrary word "fitness". And obviously the
characteristic of "reproduction" allows a species to reproduce. This
is a tautology.
> Evolution explains how species are able to adapt to new and changing environments.
Explained where? You have restated your observation that creatures
survive and they have to survive or they would'nt be here in the first
place. What is your theory as to why they survive? Presently it seems
to be: They survived because they survived and those that did'nt
survive are dead. This is the truth ofcourse but it does'nt explain to
me why they survived.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
not a living sentient being, so it's not possible for evolution to
even think in the first place, much less be confused in its
thinking. Hence your Subject field is not meaningful. Perhaps you
meant that some humans' use of the word evolution shows the humans
are confused? You need to cite which humans are confused, other
than the obvious one (you yourself).
Hmm, you might not be human. You might be like HipCrime, an A.I.
program which generates random postings, except you are more
sofisticated. You pick a quote-mine and then mis-paraphrase it and
affix an accusation that a word is confused. Maybe I'll write a
program like that someday. I'll have it pick a random passage from
the Bible, and quote it, and cite the dictionary definition of one
of the words in the passage picked at random, and simply ask
whether that dictionary definition accurately reflects the meaning
of the word in that passage. It'll post a new
random-word-in-random-passage about three times a week, in a
Christian newsgroup, causing the readers of that newsgroup to waste
immense amounts of their time answering my BibleBot program each
time.
Now on with my specific response to the body of your article:
> From: backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution "In biology,
> evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from
> generation to generation....." This is merely restating the
> observation that populations change, and is independent of any
> theory of why they change or how they did so in the past.
That's correct. Evolution is a observed fact. Inherited traits
within a population *do* in fact change from generation to
generation. One caveat: "generation" isn't a well defined concept
except for some flowering plants that produce seeds once per year
to lie in wait for the next growing year, while the parent plants
100% die out during the winter, the kind of plants we call
"annuals". Otherwise "generation" is a fuzzy concept. There's no
such thing as "one generation" exactly. But "from generation to
generation" can be interpreted as "through the passage of several
generations", and *that* can be established as unconditionally
true, for example a span of time during which the very last member
of the previous generation has died. With that interpretation, the
statement above is absolutely true according to all the relevant
evidence to-date. We've never found any life whatsoever whose
inherited traits stay exactly fixed over a span of generations.
The only people who deny this are Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now the hypothesis of random or stochastic mutation by natural
causes, and the hypothesis of divine tinkering, are two possible
explanations of why new variation appears. The hypothesis of
natural selection, and the hypothesis of divine culling, and the
hypothesis of neutral drift, are three possible explanations of why
there is variation of survival of already extant alleles, hence
weeding out of some and enhancement of others over time.
Some of those hypotheses have sufficiently precise mathematical
formulations, and sufficient experimental evidence to support them,
that we elevate their status to "theories". This category includes
mutation, natural selection, and neutral drift, but does *not* at
the present time include divine tinkering or divine culling.
> We observe objects falling to the ground. Telling me that the
> Theory of Gravity predicts that objects will fall to the ground
> is just restating the observation.
Yes, because you've completely confused yourself now. Newton's
so-called theory of gravitation is actually a combination of his
prior theory of mechanics (F = m * a, where F and m are the input
and a is the output, so it should really be written as a = F/m)
plus the hypothetical force at a distance determined by Newton's
formulation of gravitational force as m1*m2*const/(distance^2). If
you accept his mechanics, and require that every acceleration
require a force, then his hypothetical gravitational force is
necessary to satisfy the observations of falling objects and
orbiting objects. The mere fact that things fall is not his theory.
The mathematical formula for calculating the quantity and direction
of force-at-distance caused by gravitational attraction *is* his
theory, an add-on to his prior theory of mechanics.
Note that Newton's theory of mechanics is a add-on to his
reformulation of the Galileo/Cartesian mechanics (Cartesian
coordinate system plus Galileo's system for plotting position as a
function of time), whereby Newton added the Calculus to the theory,
allowing not just position but also velocity and acceleration to be
rigorously defined (and hence measured, given Galileo's methodology
for measuring position together with some least-squares fitting of
the data to a model that can be formally differentiated) in a
Cartesian coordinate system applied to flat spacetime.
> The actuall [sic] theory derived by a human being states that the
> pull between two objects is inversly proportional to the radius
> squared. This theory was'nt derived by an abstract authority - we
> know exactly who established it.
Correct: It was Sir Isaac Newton.
> In contrast I still don't know who is this peson [sic] that
> established that Evolution means change in the allele frequencies?
That must have been whoever defined the word "allele", because the
concept of change in inherited characteristics predates Darwin
whereas the word "allele" came rather later, from Mendel or later.
My guess is the word was coined by Morgan or Hamilton. It is
actually a contraction of "allelomorph", so you need to look up who
first coined *that* word from the Greek roots to have this specific
biological meaning.
Why is the origin of that word, and its incorporation into a
pre-existing understanding of the general idea of evolution, so
crucially important to you? Are you trying to write a book on the
history of science, or more narrowly the history of understanding
of biological evolution? You'll have to start with the cuneform
precursors to the Bible, where it was first recognized explicitly
that like begats like, i.e. to a first approximation, and to
several decimal places, the children are exactly like a mix of
their parents, with no significant input from any other source, no
divine input, and only an unmeasurably small (at the time) input
from a retrovirus, and only a *usually* unmeasurably small (at the
time) input from mutations, although there have always been
occasional mutations that caused gross birth defects, but the
people who wrote the Bible and the cuneform precursors to it didn't
realize that, they blamed birth defects on sin and devils etc.
OK, I did a Google search, and I had the time frame correct but the
word-coiner wrong:
<http://www.mendel-museum.org/eng/1online/room4.htm>
1900
Carl Correns and Hugo de Vries, working independently,
rediscover Mendel's rules and then his paper; Erich von
Tschermak plays a minor role. William Bateson publicises
Mendel's work to the Royal Horticultural Society of London and
soon translates his paper.
1902-1909
Bateson coins the terms genetics, allelomorph, (now shortened
to allele), homozygote, heterozygote and others.
Also, while we're at it (who coined which word):
<http://www.esp.org/timeline/decades/1900.html>
1900
H. de Vries adopts the term MUTATION to describe sudden,
spontaneous, drastic alterations in the hereditary material of
Oenothera.
hence coining a word for what Darwin was talking about much
earlier, allowing that part of Darwin's theory to now be succinctly
described.
1902
The concepts of PHENOTYPE, GENOTYPE, and SELECTION were introduced
and clearly defined by Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen.
hence allowing the rest of Darwin's theory, united with Mendel's
genetics, to be succinctly described.
<http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/99/1.28.99/genomics/timeline/timeline.html>
1902
William Bateson coins the term "genetics." Words such as gene,
homozygote, heterozygote, allelomorph, phenotype and genotype enter
the scientific vocabulary.
(That seems a more accurate date than given by other source, but is
it actually correct?)
Hey, this might help you clear up your thinking on these topics:
<http://www.dorak.info/genetics/notes01.html>
Darwin's five theories:
1. The organisms steadily evolve over time
(evolution theory)
2. Different kinds of organisms descended from a common ancestor
(common descent theory)
3. Species multiply over time
(speciation theory)
4. Evolution takes place through the gradual change of populations
(gradualism theory)
5. The mechanism of evolution is the competition among vast numbers of
unique individuals for limited resources under selective pressures,
which leads to differences in survival and reproduction
(natural selection theory).
1882 August Weismann notes the distinction between somatic and germ
cells; chromosomes observed by Walther Flemming in the nuclei of
dividing salamander cells. He uses the word mitosis
You probably want that word origin too.
1905 W Bateson gives the name genetics (means 'to generate' in Greek)
to this branch of science, and introduces the words allele
(allelomorph), heterozygous (impure line) and homozygous (pure line);
W Bateson & RC Punnett work out the principles of multigenic
interaction (linkage) and heredity [CPG p.42]
That disagrees with Cornell's 1902 date. Which is correct?
1953 On the basis of Chargaff's chemical data (1950; numbers of A and
T, and C and G are the same in DNA), and Wilkins and Franklin's
already available X-ray diffraction data, James D Watson & Francis HC
Crick describe the DNA's double helix structure by inference [CPG
p.241] [they share the Nobel prize in 1962]
Side topic: Note that everyone with access to the X-ray data
already knew DNA formed a double helix, but the general assumption
was that the backbone was in the center and the bases on the
outside. But Watson and Crick imagined that the bases were in the
center, with chemical bonding between A-T on opposing strands, and
between C-G on opposing strands, which forcibly retained the exact
equal chemical ratios 1:1 for A:T and also for C:G, but allowed
varying AT:CG ratios, would be an obvious consequence. That little
bit of thinking outside the box, plus the logic of recognizing it
as the solution to the problem of satisfying both the X-ray data
and the chemical data, was the genius that earned them the Nobel
prize.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Many scientists, including a number of Christians, are working
> together to discover the precise details of how evolutionary
> mechanisms work.
Have any Jehovah's Witnesses ever participated in any of this research
in any useful/productive way? Or does their church absolutely forbid
any such research?
Kermit
> On May 22, 10:43 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:>.Neither term is wholly satisfactory, but not because there is a problem with natural selection, but with ordinary
> >*language*."
>
> These sort of self-defeating statements is the same logical error
> Gould made. He said:"... consciousness is an illusion created by the
> brain." But that very sentence of Gould was created by his his brain
> therefore he is stating that his brain consists of illusions and why
> should we then believe a word he said including the statement itself?
Is his assertion true - *are our minds illusions created by the brain?
Whatever he meant by "illusions", why would this make any statement
more or less trustworthy?
> And your statement is a a rephrasing of what Gould said. You made that
> statement by your brain in a language and therefore there is a
> "problem" with your language itself and a "problem" with everything
> you state including the statement itself.
One problem with language is that words have multiple meanings, have
fuzzy boundaries, have different connotations for different people.
And you have a problem with that?
Technical terms and mathematics tries to avoid ambiguity as much as
possible. How is acknowledging the confusing aspects of language the
same as calling consciousness an illusion, and how does either affect
the truth value or clarity of a third assertion altogether?
>
> >I am not weaseling about anything. NS is not a tautology because a tautology doesn't imply anything not included in the
> >defining terms.
>
> And as stated under the thread "What Naturaled and who did the
> Selecting"http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df...
Natural is not a verb, If you want to convince the rest of us to use
it as such, you should find a time in which it seems the most natural
word to use...
And nobody does the selecting in NS. I would have thought you would
realize that by now.
> I agree. Natural Selection is not a tautology it is nature as a force
> with a mind all of its own.
No, it's a metaphor like "an angry storm", and it's a shorthand way of
describing the process.
> And if not then don't hijack the word
> "selection".
Too late; we've got it now. Bwahahahahaha!
Neener, neener, neener.
> Just like Prof. Sapolsky should'nt use the word
> "Evolution" to describe his process of something not having
> directionality to it as he explained in Scientific American March 2003
> and the word "mutation" should'nt be used in modern journals because
> it can't mean the same thing Darwin meant by it since he did'nt know
> about genes.
Why on Earth can't we use mutation to describe the same event? We
don't drop words from our vocabulary simply because we understand them
better. That would be stupid, and unnaturally complex.
>
> Darwin certainly had no clue what he meant by it when stateing that
> "Survival of the Fittest" is "Natural Selection" because he could'nt
> even specify the problem: Genes and life itself is not like a language
> it is a language.
No they're not. Genes are *like a language in some ways. They are like
a beaded necklace in some ways, but that doesn't make them jewelry.
> Listen to the Perry Marshall audio I gave in this
> thread. The basic problem is that Dawkins, Darwin, Gould have no idea
> of what it is that they are trying to state.
I've read some of each of these gentlemen, and I had no trouble
understanding them. You do seem to have difficulty with the most
basic ideas. Self-assessment is one. Obviously accomplished people
share a common vocabulary and pool of ideas, and you think think that
they are wrong because you have trouble with the fundamentals.
> All they know is that
> their metaphysical materialism must not be undermined.
What makes you think Darwin was a metaphysical materialist? I would
explain the difference between metaphysics and methodology, but I fear
it would do no good. "None so blind as those who will not see..."
> And they will
> do this even to the point of making the English language itself
> undefined.
The only one doing violence to the Mother Tongue here is you.
> Apparantly I -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
> - is the only YEC taking the position that everybody refuting
> "Evolution" Dembski, Ken Ham and defending "Evolution" Dawkins, are
> wasting their time, since the very phrases themselves at worst are not
> defined and at best is restated as an equivocation with an
> observation. No mechanistic theory is given of why organisms survive.
Some get eaten. Some get too cold. Some get the girls.
It can be more complicated than this, but you have to start with the
basics.
> We might never even be able to because that would mean that we could
> reduce "Life" itself to a mechanistic process.
As opposed to what - iambic pentameter?
>
> The problem is far deeper then we have realised.
You are making the claim that it is, but are failing to make a
coherent case, let alone a persuasive one.
> We essentially are
> asking: What is Life? And the phrase "Theory of Evolution" could just
> as well have been "Theory of Everything".
Ummm... no. It is a model to explain the diversity of life. Not even
the beginning of life. Certainly not everything else that is
happening.
>Given your materialist
> premises you in a sense have to explain everything so as to prevent a
> Deity foothold in the door as the ex head of Harvard put after he
> himself reaped the intolerance that he sowed.
Quite a few folks believe that there is at least one deity, and he or
she is the creator. Evolution is clearly the way he created life's
diversity.
> We can't apriori
> predetermine the form the answer must take.
Well, we shouldn't. But it doesn't seem to be stopping you.
> My only constraint on
> metaphysical discussions would be some sort of falsification test.
> Some believe in reincarnation, others that they are space aliens from
> the planet Xeno. There is no way of falsifying such beliefs.
>
Creator gods. You forgot to mention creator gods.
> The theist position is that there are absolutes.
You don't know many Zen Buddhists, do you? (1)
> Materialists that
> everything is relative even morality.
Wow. I thought I believed otherwise, but thank you for clarifying
that.
> But taken to its full logical
> conclusion it means that language, words and phrases becomes relative
> to the point that they can mean anything you want it to mean.
I suppose if one starts with the premiss that "all things are
relative", or some such nonsense. Do you actually no anyone who thinks
this? I'm not sure it means anything, except in a clearly defined
context.
> One
> federal US judge said:"There are two kinds of truth, one for the
> defendent and one for the claimant". This "evolution theory" whatever
> it might be has not only led to a moralist relativism but a language
> relativism.
Actually, religion tends to lead to this. If truth is God's word, and
he speaks to all believers, but never in a verifiable way, then
believers can say that Jesus wants us to go to war, or to be peaceful
even to the point of not defending oneself. That Mohammad is the last
and greatest of prophets, or that he was a heretic. Etc. Religious
prophets, preachers, legal experts, and so on can say anything, and
claim that it is revealed truth. There is no way to verify. But
scientists can only make scientific claims is they are verifiable or
will be in the near future. Otherwise they don't really mean much
scientifically.
> And if the very words we use become relative and
> meaningless, we will have meaningless debates as this forum is ample
> evidence off.
You are surely doing your best to obscure the meaning of ordinary
language.
(1) Q: How many Zen Buddhists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Two. One to screw it in, and one not to screw it in.
Kermit
Mark Nutter
> On May 22, 8:35 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink.net> wrote:> You are confusing the process of evolution - the change and proliferation of
> > species over time - and the theory of evolution which explains that change.
>
> What theory? What is your theory of evolution. What is this theory
> that you keep on refering to as "evolution"?
> Where is this theory that provides us with a mechanistic description
> of life itself? Please provide me with the theory of evolution
> without restating the observation that things have survived.
Fine, have it your way: There's nothing theoretical about evolution,
and any time anyone tries to describe evolutionary theory, they end up
talking about observed fact. Congratulations on proving that evolution
is a fact and not a theory.
> > Scientists define fitness in terms of heritable characteristics such as
> > size, speed, camouflage, rate of reproduction. It is these characteristics
> > that allow individuals and species to survive (to reproduce).
>
> Again you are equivocating your observatoin of size, speed and
> reproduction with an arbitrary word "fitness". And obviously the
> characteristic of "reproduction" allows a species to reproduce. This
> is a tautology.
The fact that a thing is the same as itself does not mean that the
thing is a tautology. Nor does it change the fact that there is an
interaction between the characteristics of an individual, and that
individual's chances of successful reproduction in a given population,
or the fact that this interaction means that some inheritable
characteristics will tend to spread throughout a population whereas
others will disappear, or the fact that over time and in varying
environmental conditions this will result in diverging populations
that eventually become separate species. Naturally, I'm not speaking
theoretically here, since you've proven that there is no theory and
all I have to refer to are observed factual phenomena.
> > Evolution explains how species are able to adapt to new and changing environments.
>
> Explained where? You have restated your observation that creatures
> survive and they have to survive or they would'nt be here in the first
> place. What is your theory as to why they survive? Presently it seems
> to be: They survived because they survived and those that did'nt
> survive are dead. This is the truth ofcourse but it does'nt explain to
> me why they survived.
Evolution is not about explaining why individual animals survive.
Maybe it was a prey animal whose markings lent it better camouflage
and allowed it to escape from the predators that ate its siblings. But
evolution is about what happens to the whole population as a result of
the fact that animals with some characteristics are more likely to
survive and reproduce than animals with other characteristics. The
accumulation of changes in the frequency of inherited characteristics
means that over time different populations, under different
environmental pressures, will diverge and ultimately become distinct
species.
Not theory, as you've so eloquently argued, but merely observed fact.
Thank you for your contribution.
m
backspace
wrote:
> First a nitpick: Evolution is a bunch of observations and theories,
And until you tell me who has formally established what "Evolution"
means you are not even wrong. Thus far it is used as a proxy word
equivocated with an arbitrary observation masquerading as an
independant specification of the very observation it is supposed to
explain.
> Now the hypothesis of random or stochastic mutation by natural
> causes, and the hypothesis of divine tinkering, are two possible
> explanations of why new variation appears.
Variations do appear and we all agree on this but what has this got to
do with "selection"? You can't specify the problem and therefore how
could you get the solution? Let me try and at least specify the
problem in terms Berlinski described on p.304 of Black Mischief First
edition:
"In some sense a grammar capable of generating the sentences of
English must store information, holding it in reserve untiil needed.
The simplest such grammar is a pushdown storage automaton. Now
palindromic sequences have been discovered in the genome by Pieczenik.
But palindromes can't be generated by a finite-state grammar. IF
molecular biological grammars exist, they have to be at least as
complex as a pushdown storage automaton.
Berlinski asked: If genetic code is informed by grammatical
constraints of a nontrivial nature,how in turn did they arise if in
the first instance they are necessary to working of the code?"
By using such terminology instead of "reproductive success",
"adaptations","survive" which only restate the observation we are at
least able to start formulating an independant description of the
observation: Populations inherit traits. The question is why and this
is answered by reformulating the observation and conflating it with
the word evolution.
backspace
> The question is why and this
> is answered by reformulating the observation and conflating it with
> the word evolution.
The question is why and this is NOT answered by reformulating the
Noelie S. Alito
> On May 22, 8:35 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> You are confusing the process of evolution - the change and proliferation of
>> species over time - and the theory of evolution which explains that change.
> What theory? What is your theory of evolution. What is this theory
> that you keep on refering to as "evolution"?
At this point in time scientific consensus explanation for
how life develops and diversifies on the planet is known
as the Modern Synthesis, commonly referred to as the "Theory
of Evolution".
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis>
> Where is this theory that provides us with a mechanistic description
> of life itself? Please provide me with the theory of evolution
> without restating the observation that things have survived.
>
>> Scientists define fitness in terms of heritable characteristics such as
>> size, speed, camouflage, rate of reproduction. It is these characteristics
>> that allow individuals and species to survive (to reproduce).
> Again you are equivocating your observatoin of size, speed and
> reproduction with an arbitrary word "fitness". And obviously the
> characteristic of "reproduction" allows a species to reproduce. This
> is a tautology.
>
>> Evolution explains how species are able to adapt to new and changing environments.
> Explained where? You have restated your observation that creatures
> survive and they have to survive or they would'nt be here in the first
> place. What is your theory as to why they survive?
Each specific organism?
In colder climates, those that inherited the long-hair genes survived
in greater percentages than the short-haired ones due to the increased
ability to retain heat, and can live longer to breed more often.
In pine cone areas, crossbills birds which inherited bill shapes with
just the right twist have an easier time with their food supply than
birds with a less efficient twist, and thus make more baby birds.
On a savanna with predators, antelopes which inherit speedier combinations
of genes than their herdmates are more likely to escape predation and
live longer to breed more often.
Insects whose hatching cycles come closest to the timing/criteria
of the whole population are less likely to be prematurely eaten
because their numbers outrun their predators' appetites, and
live to produce the next generation.
In a highly fished environment, the members of a fish species which
inherit a smaller adult size which can escape a fishing net are
more likely to contribute their size-related genes to the next
generation.
Wheat plants which produce marginally more cholesterol in their
cell membranes are more likely to survive cold weather, and
produce a greater proportion of the next generation of wheat.
Turkey vultures which inherit the tendency to poop more acidic
droppings on their own feet are less likely to suffer bacterial
infections from the carrion they feed on. Healthier vultures
contribute more babies to the next generation.
Should I email you another 400 zillion reasons why genes
which improve the chances that an organism will survive,
thrive and reproduce in a given environment become a greater
percentage of the population of succeeding generations?
> Presently it seems
> to be: They survived because they survived and those that did'nt
> survive are dead. This is the truth ofcourse but it does'nt explain to
> me why they survived.
Their gene combinations outbred the competing gene combinations
in their ecosystem. Even tiny increases in probability of
survival can make a difference over many generations, like
compound interest in the bank.
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 47 years."
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> > And until you tell me who has formally established what "Evolution"
> means you are not even wrong.
nature established it. just as nature invented 'atoms' and 'heat' and
other scientific concepts.
Thus far it is used as a proxy word
> equivocated with an arbitrary observation masquerading as an
> independant specification of the very observation it is supposed to
> explain.
boy talk about a meaningless characterization.
evolution is about sex and death.
do you deny sex exist? if so, how did you get here?
do you deny death exists?
> > Variations do appear and we all agree on this but what has this got to
> do with "selection"? You can't specify the problem and therefore how
> could you get the solution? Let me try and at least specify the
> problem in terms Berlinski described on p.304 of Black Mischief First
> edition:
> "In some sense a grammar capable of generating the sentences of
> English must store information, holding it in reserve untiil needed.
> The simplest such grammar is a pushdown storage automaton. Now
> palindromic sequences have been discovered in the genome by Pieczenik.
> But palindromes can't be generated by a finite-state grammar. IF
> molecular biological grammars exist, they have to be at least as
> complex as a pushdown storage automaton.
> Berlinski asked: If genetic code is informed by grammatical
> constraints of a nontrivial nature,how in turn did they arise if in
> the first instance they are necessary to working of the code?"
?? the process itself is observed and serves as its own instance of
proof. we can SEE evolution happening. the 'first' evolutionary
organism is irrelevant unless you're prepared to dispute the fact that
evolution is observed.
>
> By using such terminology instead of "reproductive success",
> "adaptations","survive" which only restate the observation we are at
> least able to start formulating an independant description of the
> observation: Populations inherit traits. The question is why and this
> is answered by reformulating the observation and conflating it with
> the word evolution.
and what's wrong with the word evolution? words have meanings. i
realize that, to creationists, orwellian linguistics are all the rage,
but you seem to want to use 10 words when 1 will do.
and 'success' is meaningless in terms of evolution. so go back to YOUR
dictionary and find an alternative.
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> > I agree. Natural Selection is not a tautology it is nature as a force
> with a mind all of its own.
?? 'mind'? what is 'mind'? you seem to be hung up on OTHERS' use of
words, but sling around meaningless terms with a poetic license that
would shame ezra pound.
And if not then don't hijack the word
> "selection". Just like Prof. Sapolsky should'nt use the word
> "Evolution" to describe his process of something not having
> directionality to it as he explained in Scientific American March 2003
> and the word "mutation" should'nt be used in modern journals because
> it can't mean the same thing Darwin meant by it since he did'nt know
> about genes.
?? who cares if he knew about genes. we do. planck didn't know about
electrons but we do. your point is irrelevant.
>
> Darwin certainly had no clue what he meant by it when stateing that
> "Survival of the Fittest" is "Natural Selection" because he could'nt
> even specify the problem:
IOW you don't agree with HIS formulation of the issue: that of nested
hierarchies...the interrelationships seen in nature...which are not,
in themselves, dependent on genetics since genetics can't be seen
while nested hierarchies can.
Genes and life itself is not like a language
> it is a language.
irrelevant. you have your issue. darwin had his. you're trying to put
words in his mouth.
Listen to the Perry Marshall audio I gave in this
> thread. The basic problem is that Dawkins, Darwin, Gould have no idea
> of what it is that they are trying to state. All they know is that
> their metaphysical materialism must not be undermined.
?? meaningless. materialism has explained more in 100 years than any
other concept in human history. if you disagree, by all means tell us
what successes religion had in explaining the world in the last 5000
years.
>
> The problem is far deeper then we have realised. We essentially are
> asking: What is Life?
wrong. the question is germane to all of science. the question is:
what is change? that's what science seeks to explain.
And the phrase "Theory of Evolution" could just
> as well have been "Theory of Everything". Given your materialist
> premises
and given your failure at using supernaturalism to explain anything,
no wonder you're angry with science.
you in a sense have to explain everything so as to prevent a
> Deity foothold in the door as the ex head of Harvard put after he
> himself reaped the intolerance that he sowed.
what has a deity ever explained? if you say it's a powerful idea that
answers more questions than science you should be able to cite ONE
example
by all means, do so.
>
> The theist position is that there are absolutes. Materialists that
> everything is relative even morality.
really? ever hear of the speed of light?
and morality is not a scientific concept. it has nothing to do with
evolution at all.
in addition, few things are as plastic as the religious concepts
surrounding morality. hell, christians approved of slavery for 19
centuries. THAT'S immoral!!
But taken to its full logical
> conclusion it means that language, words and phrases becomes relative
> to the point that they can mean anything you want it to mean. One
> federal US judge said:"There are two kinds of truth, one for the
> defendent and one for the claimant". This "evolution theory" whatever
> it might be has not only led to a moralist relativism but a language
> relativism. And if the very words we use become relative and
> meaningless, we will have meaningless debates as this forum is ample
> evidence off.
fine. tell me what an absolute is. i just pointed out that
christianity approved of slavery. so tell me why that was fine for
almost 2 millenia if there's an absolute morality.
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> >
> There are three fundamental logical flaws being made:
> 1) Equivocating an observation with an adhoc phrase such as "natural
> selection" and then restating the observation as a theory. Any phrase
> could have been chosen even "Aztec Cosmology"
IOW he's never heard of differential reproduction....the observed
engine of evolution...
> 3) Appeal to Abstract Authority: Telling me that "science" says so and
> "science" does'nt say anything. The phrase "science says so" is used
> for its rethorical effect when arguing from authority especially if
> your materialist premises are threatened.
says the guy who thinks there is a concept called 'materialist
premises'...
>
backspace
wf3h wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > > And until you tell me who has formally established what "Evolution"
> > means you are not even wrong.
> ?? the process itself is observed and serves as its own instance of
> proof. we can SEE evolution happening. the 'first' evolutionary
> organism is irrelevant unless you're prepared to dispute the fact that
> evolution is observed.
No, we SEE tigers reproducing. You can call this observation anything
you want even the "Theory of Evolution", but restating your
observation and equivocating it with an arbitrary phrase let say
"Theory of Everything" is not a theory, it does'nt independantly
specify why tigers reproduce. Tigers reproducing is a problem we can't
even state because tigers reproducing is "Life" and how do you reduce
"Life" itself to a mechanistic description?
Following the Deranvich article http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
he refers to
the Massimo article:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
and Massimo makes the same mistake you make:
"For example, if we were to ask what are the causes of a tiger's teeth
within a Darwinian framework, we would answer in the following manner.
The material cause is provided by the biological materials that make
up the teeth; the formal cause is the genetic and developmental
machinery that distinguishes a tiger's teeth from any other kind of
biological structure; the efficient cause is natural selection
promoting some genetic variants of the tiger's ancestor over others;
and the final cause is provided by the fact that having teeth
structured in a certain way makes it easier for a tiger to procure its
prey and therefore to survive and reproduce - the only "goals" of
every living being."
Notice that he used the phrases "Darwinian framework", "natural
selection" and then restated his observation that tigers must have
teeth structured in a certain way in order to kill it's prey in terms
of these phrases. But this not a theory, he did'nt independantly from
the observation that tigers have strong teeth explain why they have or
what they had in the past. And you take any modern journal in
evolution, they merely restate observations such as human DNA being
closer to chicken DNA and then mixes this observation with either
"Natural Selection", "Evolution" or any other adhoc phrase the author
wishes to use. All this does is cloud the actual observation.
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> wf3h wrote:
> >
> > ?? the process itself is observed and serves as its own instance of
> > proof. we can SEE evolution happening. the 'first' evolutionary
> > organism is irrelevant unless you're prepared to dispute the fact that
> > evolution is observed.
> No, we SEE tigers reproducing.
uh. no. that's not ALL we see. it may be all YOU see because of your
religious beliefs, but this is what is observed:
1. there is variation in tiger populations
2. some tigers die before reproducing
3. the next generation of tigers differs from its parent population
evolution, QED.
You can call this observation anything
> you want even the "Theory of Evolution", but restating your
> observation and equivocating it with an arbitrary phrase let say
> "Theory of Everything" is not a theory,
you're going nowhere here unless you can demonstrate that the children
of tigers are identical to their parents.
good luck.
it does'nt independantly
> specify why tigers reproduce.
WHY tigers reproduce is irrelevant. the FACT is descendent populations
differ from parent populations. evolution...
Tigers reproducing is a problem we can't
> even state because tigers reproducing is "Life" and how do you reduce
> "Life" itself to a mechanistic description?
irrelevant. absolutely irrelevant. you can ask any questions you want:
why don't tigers drive porsches? why don't they crochet?
but what is observed are the 3 points above...evolution...
>
> Notice that he used the phrases "Darwinian framework", "natural
> selection" and then restated his observation that tigers must have
> teeth structured in a certain way in order to kill it's prey in terms
> of these phrases. But this not a theory, he did'nt independantly from
> the observation that tigers have strong teeth explain why they have or
> what they had in the past. ]]]
again you seem to be saying children are identical to their parents.
that is wrong. it's simply not true. i am different than my parents.
so, yes, people HAVE observed variations in populations. it's
observed. it's not a 'theory'. it's an observation.
and you seem to be denying that certain characteristics are measurable
or that they confer a selective advantage...neither of which is true.
And you take any modern journal in
> evolution, they merely restate observations such as human DNA being
> closer to chicken DNA and then mixes this observation with either
> "Natural Selection", "Evolution" or any other adhoc phrase the author
> wishes to use. All this does is cloud the actual observation.
the 3 points above are observed. you deny variations in populations.
so the evidence simply doesn't support you.
backspace
> uh. no. that's not ALL we see. it may be all YOU see because of your
> religious beliefs, but this is what is observed:
materialist paradigm. You have apiori ruled out all other options.
> 1. there is variation in tiger populations
> 2. some tigers die before reproducing
> 3. the next generation of tigers differs from its parent population
> evolution, QED.
Yes, you can call these observations 1,2 and 3 "Evolution" or "Aztec
Cosmology" or anything else. But the observation is not a theory. What
is your theory as to why tiger populations vary and the next
generation differ from its parent population? Me observing the sun
shining and calling it "The theory of Sunshine" states that the sun is
hot does'nt independantly specify why it is hot.
> and you seem to be denying that certain characteristics are measurable
> or that they confer a selective advantage...neither of which is true.
Lets take out the word "selective" then I am not denying that
charateristics are measurable and conver an advantage. I want to know
what is your independant specification about these characteristics?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On May 24, 11:23 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> uh. no. that's not ALL we see. it may be all YOU see because of your
> > religious beliefs, but this is what is observed:
>
> And your religious beliefs is that everything must fit in the
> materialist paradigm. You have apiori ruled out all other options.
Science does not "a priori" rule out other options. It's just if there
is nothing which can be observed or measured, it can't be investigated
using the tools of science.
How can science investigate something for which there is no evidence?
>
> > 1. there is variation in tiger populations
> > 2. some tigers die before reproducing
> > 3. the next generation of tigers differs from its parent population
> > evolution, QED.
>
> Yes, you can call these observations 1,2 and 3 "Evolution" or "Aztec
> Cosmology" or anything else.
As it happens, we call it evolution.
> But the observation is not a theory.
As has been explained to you at length, nobody does. Evolution
happens. We can observe it happening. Evolutionary theory seeks to
explain how it happens.
>What
> is your theory as to why tiger populations vary and the next
> generation differ from its parent population?
It's part of gene theory which is one of the components of
evolutionary theory.
> Me observing the sun
> shining and calling it "The theory of Sunshine" states that the sun is
> hot does'nt independantly specify why it is hot.
If you want to demonstrate your scientific illiteracy and dogmatic
refusal to learn anything, feel free to carry on in this vein. But as
all you are doing is making yourself look scientifically illiterate
and dogmatically ignorant, I wonder what you think you can gain by
doing so.
>
> > and you seem to be denying that certain characteristics are measurable
> > or that they confer a selective advantage...neither of which is true.
>
> Lets take out the word "selective" then I am not denying that
> charateristics are measurable and conver an advantage. I want to know
> what is your independant specification about these characteristics?
Why not educate yourself in the subject? If you have any genuine
interest in learning - which seems extremely doubtful, but I'll give
you the benefit - I can recommend several excellent books.
RF
TomS
<1180008914.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
richardal...@googlemail.com stated..."
>
>On May 24, 12:25 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On May 24, 11:23 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> uh. no. that's not ALL
>>we see. it may be all YOU see because of your
>> > religious beliefs, but this is what is observed:
>>
>> And your religious beliefs is that everything must fit in the
>> materialist paradigm. You have apiori ruled out all other options.
>
>Science does not "a priori" rule out other options. It's just if there
>is nothing which can be observed or measured, it can't be investigated
>using the tools of science.
>
>How can science investigate something for which there is no evidence?
There is another side to this.
If science determines that something-or-other is responsible, then
that something-or-other falls under the laws of science.
If we can understand the workings of an "intelligent designer", then
that intelligent designer is thereby limited in what it can do. It is not
omnipotent. It can only "design", not create-from-nothing. Its ways,
its purposes, are subject to human understanding.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Perplexed in Peoria
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:190011162.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On 24 May 2007 05:15:14 -0700, in article
> <1180008914.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> richardal...@googlemail.com stated..."
> >
> >On May 24, 12:25 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>On May 24, 11:23 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> uh. no. that's not ALL
> >>we see. it may be all YOU see because of your
> >> > religious beliefs, but this is what is observed:
> >>
> >> And your religious beliefs is that everything must fit in the
> >> materialist paradigm. You have apiori ruled out all other options.
> >
> >Science does not "a priori" rule out other options. It's just if there
> >is nothing which can be observed or measured, it can't be investigated
> >using the tools of science.
> >
> >How can science investigate something for which there is no evidence?
> [...snip...]
>
> There is another side to this.
>
> If science determines that something-or-other is responsible, then
> that something-or-other falls under the laws of science.
>
> If we can understand the workings of an "intelligent designer", then
> that intelligent designer is thereby limited in what it can do. It is not
> omnipotent. It can only "design", not create-from-nothing. Its ways,
> its purposes, are subject to human understanding.
I agree, and it is an important point. But I think that it is also important
to avoid a false dichotomy here. It may be that we can scientifically
learn something about a Designer, but not everything. Just as we can learn
something about what an electron is likely to do, but not everything.
backspace
"In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of
genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by
copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by
exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or
viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during
processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular
organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which
can be passed on to descendants, and somatic mutations. The somatic
mutations cannot be transmitted to descendants in animals. Plants
sometimes can transmit somatic mutations to their descendants
asexually or sexually (in case when flower buds develop in somatically
mutated part of plant)."
It seems the same mistake is being done with the word "mutation". The
paragraph states an observation "changes in the base pair...of DNA"
and one of many reasons such a copying errors. Mutation and evolution
are used all over the place in the same context. Thus by stealth a
subtle link is created between the observation of "changes in the base
pair or DNA" and the word "Evolution" because Darwin used the word
"Mutation" but meant by it the transmutation or transformation of one
species into another. Dr. Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance" explains
why the information content of the genome does'nt allow one species to
change into another. It is fraud to use the same word Darwin used
since Darwin did'nt know about genes and because of the insinuation
that because there is changes in the base pair of DNA a frog can turn
into a donky.
Mark VandeWettering
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
> "In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of
> genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by
> copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by
> exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or
> viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during
> processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular
> organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which
> can be passed on to descendants, and somatic mutations. The somatic
> mutations cannot be transmitted to descendants in animals. Plants
> sometimes can transmit somatic mutations to their descendants
> asexually or sexually (in case when flower buds develop in somatically
> mutated part of plant)."
>
> It seems the same mistake is being done with the word "mutation".
> The paragraph states an observation "changes in the base pair...of
> DNA" and one of many reasons such a copying errors. Mutation and
> evolution are used all over the place in the same context.
The above paragraph doesn't refer to evolution at all.
> Thus by stealth a subtle link is created between the observation of
> "changes in the base pair or DNA" and the word "Evolution" because
> Darwin used the word "Mutation" but meant by it the transmutation or
> transformation of one species into another. Dr. Lee Spetner's book
> "Not by Chance" explains why the information content of the genome
> does'nt allow one species to change into another.
It does nothing of the sort.
> It is fraud to use the same word Darwin used since Darwin did'nt know
> about genes and because of the insinuation that because there is
> changes in the base pair of DNA a frog can turn into a donky.
Newton didn't know how gravity worked either.
And nobody thinks that a frog can turn into a donky(sic).
A prince perhaps, but not a donkey.
Mark
Perplexed in Peoria
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180024227.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Dr. Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance" explains
> why the information content of the genome does'nt allow one species to
> change into another.
An informative review of this book can be found here:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm
Don't miss the exchange of emails between Spetner and Korthof
AC
> On May 24, 11:23 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> uh. no. that's not ALL we see. it may be all YOU see because of your
>> religious beliefs, but this is what is observed:
> And your religious beliefs is that everything must fit in the
> materialist paradigm. You have apiori ruled out all other options.
Science only works on material things. Care to provide a means for
falsifying the statement "God made you an absurd moron"?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> On May 24, 11:23 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > 1. there is variation in tiger populations
> > 2. some tigers die before reproducing
> > 3. the next generation of tigers differs from its parent population
> > evolution, QED.
> Yes, you can call these observations 1,2 and 3 "Evolution" or "Aztec
> Cosmology" or anything else. But the observation is not a theory.
uh, is heliocentrism an observation, a fact or a theory? do you deny
that theories and observations can be facts? if so, then you don't
know what science is.
What
> is your theory as to why tiger populations vary
ever hear of mutations? they're facts, too.
and the next
> generation differ from its parent population? \\
ever hear of differential reproduction? another fact...
Me observing the sun
> shining and calling it "The theory of Sunshine" states that the sun is
> hot does'nt independantly specify why it is hot.
OK tell me again if heliocentrism is a theory, an observation, or a
fact.
>
> > and you seem to be denying that certain characteristics are measurable
> > or that they confer a selective advantage...neither of which is true.
> Lets take out the word "selective" then I am not denying that
> charateristics are measurable and conver an advantage. I want to know
> what is your independant specification about these characteristics?
meaningless question. what is an 'independent specification'?
i'm in engineering. you're in word salad. big difference.
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> >
> It seems the same mistake is being done with the word "mutation". The
> paragraph states an observation "changes in the base pair...of DNA"
> and one of many reasons such a copying errors. Mutation and evolution
> are used all over the place in the same context. Thus by stealth a
> subtle link is created between the observation of "changes in the base
> pair or DNA" and the word "Evolution"
well DUH!!! kind of like saying that a link is created in chemistry
between 'oxygen' and 'rust'....
because Darwin used the word
> "Mutation" but meant by it the transmutation or transformation of one
> species into another. Dr. Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance" explains
> why the information content of the genome does'nt allow one species to
> change into another.
speciation does happen. you're using word games to pretend you don't
understand what is readily observed in nature.
It is fraud to use the same word Darwin used
words can change meaning over time. sorry if you're confused. no doubt
due to the stunting effect of your religious beliefs...
> since Darwin did'nt know about genes and because of the insinuation
> that because there is changes in the base pair of DNA a frog can turn
> into a donky.
and in creationism a duck can become a B52. THAT'S random...
backspace
> > On May 24, 11:23 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> uh. no. that's not ALL we see. it may be all YOU see because of your
> >> religious beliefs, but this is what is observed:
> > And your religious beliefs is that everything must fit in the
> > materialist paradigm. You have apiori ruled out all other options.
>
> Science only works on material things. Care to provide a means for
> falsifying the statement "God made you an absurd moron"?
TomS
<1180050723....@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, wf3h stated..."
>
>
>backspace wrote:
[...snip...]
> because Darwin used the word
>> "Mutation" but meant by it the transmutation or transformation of one
>> species into another. Dr. Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance" explains
>> why the information content of the genome does'nt allow one species to
>> change into another.
>
>speciation does happen. you're using word games to pretend you don't
>understand what is readily observed in nature.
>
> It is fraud to use the same word Darwin used
>
>words can change meaning over time. sorry if you're confused. no doubt
>due to the stunting effect of your religious beliefs...
Where did Darwin use the word "mutation"?
backspace
> > generation differ from its parent population? \\
> ever hear of differential reproduction? another fact...
Differential means not the same or non-similar. There is not a single
tiger in existance that is an exact carbon copy of another tiger -
they differ.
If you had written "Ever heared of reproduction" you would have said
exactly the same. Why do evolutionists keep on saying the same obvious
thing: Ofspring of tigers differ. No kidding, is this an observation
or a theory? Do you see how confused your language is?
jesusislord
1 timothy 6:20,21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred
concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. [[[The first to
Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of
Phrygia Pacatiana.]]]
Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and
skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding
science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's
palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the
Chaldeans. http://www.blbi.org/
Maybe some will fine the truth, about science before it's to late. God
gave us science, so we could find the truth,not to prove evolution,
John Wilkins
> "On 24 May 2007 16:52:04 -0700, in article
> <1180050723....@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, wf3h stated..."
> >
> >
> >backspace wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > because Darwin used the word
> >> "Mutation" but meant by it the transmutation or transformation of one
> >> species into another. Dr. Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance" explains
> >> why the information content of the genome does'nt allow one species to
> >> change into another.
> >
> >speciation does happen. you're using word games to pretend you don't
> >understand what is readily observed in nature.
> >
> >> It is fraud to use the same word Darwin used
> >
> >words can change meaning over time. sorry if you're confused. no doubt
> >due to the stunting effect of your religious beliefs...
> [...snip...]
>
> Where did Darwin use the word "mutation"?
Or "speciation", or "gene" or "information content" or...
--
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."
Mark Nutter
> Maybe some will fine the truth, about science before it's to late. God
> gave us science, so we could find the truth,not to prove evolution,
And in my case it did exactly that, by exposing the inconsistencies in
what Christians were claiming about their God. Finding out that
Christians were making false and misleading statements about evolution
was only the beginning of my discovery of the truth.
The truth is that God does not show up in the real world, and that in
His absence, men have no choice but to put their faith in the
traditions of men (such as the Biblical traditions you quoted from).
Faith in God is not an option. Obedience to God is not an option. God
does not show up to tell us what to believe or what to do. Christians
are following what men say to believe, and what men say to do. They
may call it believing in God and obeying God, but the truth is they
are getting it all from other men. Why would anyone follow men who
can't even tell the truth about where they get their beliefs and
commandments from?
m
Mark Nutter
> On May 25, 1:48 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > generation differ from its parent population? \\
> > ever hear of differential reproduction? another fact...
>
> Differential means not the same or non-similar. There is not a single
> tiger in existance that is an exact carbon copy of another tiger -
> they differ.
That's the definition for "different," not "differential."
Differential reproduction is a term that describes differences in the
rates at which certain characteristics become more or less prevalent
among the members of a population, from one generation to the next.
> If you had written "Ever heared of reproduction" you would have said
> exactly the same. Why do evolutionists keep on saying the same obvious
> thing: Ofspring of tigers differ. No kidding, is this an observation
> or a theory? Do you see how confused your language is?
Perhaps the source of the confusion is not what you think it is. ;-)
m
backspace
> That's the definition for "different," not "differential."
> Differential reproduction is a term that describes differences in the
> rates at which certain characteristics become more or less prevalent
> among the members of a population, from one generation to the next.
But "differential reproduction" is not a theory, it is a reformulation
and restatement of your observation that you have given me above. Its
no wonder nobody can tell me who established "differential
reproductive success". You can't establishd a discovery and
observation you can only attempt to provide an independant
specification.
Rolf
"jesusislord" <ayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180098587.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Right, the goal is not to prove evolution, it is to unravel the truth, the
details of evolution to make the theory ever more comprehensive.
That is all that science is about: to learn the truth, as much of the truth
that is within the capapbility of the human mind - using the mental powers
of our investigative mind and our thirst for knowledge. To satisify our
desire for peace of mind we must employ other techniques; logical reasoning
will not get you any.
Rolf
> On May 21, 6:30 pm, Thurisaz the Einherjer
> <MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> > assbackwards:
> >
> > >>Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"In biology, evolution is
> > > the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to
> > > generation....." This is merely restating the observation that
> > > populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they
> > > change or how they did so in the past.
>
> > And this is why there's a distinction between the fact and the theory of
> > evolution
>
> Let me clarify then:
> Evolution is the change in allele frequency of genes. Restated the
> change in allele frequency of genes which we observe has been
> arbitrarily equivocated with the word "evolution". It could have been
> any word though. The word "evolution" functions as a proxy for the
> observation that allele freqeuencies change, but this doesn't explain
> why it changes.
AFAIK, the *theory of evolution* - an extremely well documented, explained
and tutoried theory, - not just the word 'evolution', is the answer to the
question that backspace could answer himslef, if he wanted to learn what it
takes. Instead, ha have chosen to engage in a semantic hide-and-seek based
on the his opening statement for this thread.
A theory must now provide some sort of independant
> description of the changes in allele frequency like the periodic table
> allows us to specify rocks in term of silica atoms and nuclear fusion
> allows us to develop a theory of how the sun shines.A few decades ago
> we had absolutely no idea as why to the actuall processes that we
> experience as heat from the sun. It had to await the discovery of
> nuclear theory. In the same way only recently with the discovery of
> genes not being like a language but actually is a language we are now
> able to at least attempt an independant specification of allele
> frequency changes. Up till now it had only been an observation
> equivocate with the word "evolution". Darwin was'nt even able to
> specify the problem in the same way that pre Newton calculus nobody
> could explain why we experiance heat from the sun.
>
> Darwin's repetive chanting of "mutations" ,
> "adaptations" ,"variations", "survival" was mearly repeating the
> observation and equivocating it with a word he arbitrarily chose:
> Evolution. Since he did'nt know about genes he could'nt even specify
> the problem. Pre Mendelev all we could say was that a rock is "hard",
> there was no way to independantly specify why a rock is hard. This had
> to await the periodic table.If only Darwin would have used the word
> "expialidosis" to equivocate his observations that fleas survived and
> not hijack a perfectly normal very pleasing sounding
> word:"Evolution".The word "Evolution" means upwards progressive change
> towards a higher goal as its antonym "devolution" indicates. By Darwin
> equovocating his observation that fleas "survived" with the word
> "Evolution" he gave fleas a "directionality" dimension. This
> directionality is further strenghtened by the word "selection". By
> equivocating his observations of cows mooing and sheep pooping with
> the word "selection" he anthromorphosized nature. Nature now became a
> cause in and of itself a form of pantheism.
>
> What Darwin called the Theory of Evolution never independantly
> specified why cows survive, but merely restated the observation and
> equivocated it with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution". The fundamental
> flaw in ID/Creationsists counter arguments to the "Theory of
> Evolution" and it associated words "adaptations", "variations",
> "micro", "macro" is that they assume it actually is a theory instead
> of a restatement of an observation equivocated with the phrase:"The
> Theory of Evolution".
>
> Trying to "refute" the "Theory of Evolution" you in essence are
> stateing that cows did'nt survive, or allele frequencies don't change
> or whatever arbitrary observation evolutionists equivocate with the
> phrase:"The Theory of Evolution". AFter the discovery of genes the
> materialists or Darwinists arbitrarily equivocated their observation
> of the change in allele frequencies with the phrase:"Theory of
> Evolution". Before the discovery of genes Darwin equivocated the
> phrase "Theory of Evolution" with his observation that finches beaks
> change and cows surviving. Using the same phrase "Theory of Evolution"
> for "allele frequency changes" and "change in populations inherited
> traits" is tantamount to using the phrase "Phlogiston Theory" for
> observations Einstein explained under "Relativity Theory". "Relativity
> Theory" and "Phlogiston Theory" are rightfully two seperate phrases to
> describe seperate theories.
>
> And the same argument extends to the phrase "Natural Selection".
> "Natural Selection" used in 1859 can't possibly mean the same thing as
> used in the Journal of Theoretical Biology of 2007 nearly 150 years
> later. Darwin stated that "Natural Selection" is just a diffent way of
> stating "Survival of the Fittest". And Dr.Wilkins a noted Evolutionist
> calls Survival of the fittest a tautology - which it obvously is. It
> simply restates one word in terms of another, it is a circular
> argument. Natural Selection functions in modern biology as some sort
> of universal mechanism, which is just as implausable as having a
> universal differential equation explaining all of physics.
>
> It is therefore irrational to state that the theory of evolution is
> "Godless" like http://www.uncommondescent.com Davescot does. Because
> the four words in the phrase:"The Theory of Evolution" equivocated
> with the observation that cows survived means calling "The Theory of
> Evolution" - 'Godless' that the event of cows surviving is itself
> 'Godless'.
>
Mark Nutter
> On May 25, 3:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's the definition for "different," not "differential."
> > Differential reproduction is a term that describes differences in the
> > rates at which certain characteristics become more or less prevalent
> > among the members of a population, from one generation to the next.
>
> But "differential reproduction" is not a theory, it is a reformulation
> and restatement of your observation that you have given me above.
Of course. The point of naming things is so that you can refer to them
in a few words instead of repeating the whole, long, detailed
description all the time.
> Its
> no wonder nobody can tell me who established "differential
> reproductive success".
Exactly. It's just a name for a fact, like "evolution" is.
m
wf3h
John Wilkins wrote:
> > >
> > Where did Darwin use the word "mutation"?
>
> Or "speciation", or "gene" or "information content" or...
why...the same place he used the term 'race' to tell us why blacks are
inferior...you know, just like the creationists say he did...
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> On May 25, 3:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's the definition for "different," not "differential."
> > Differential reproduction is a term that describes differences in the
> > rates at which certain characteristics become more or less prevalent
> > among the members of a population, from one generation to the next.
>
> But "differential reproduction" is not a theory,
and neither is heliocentrism. it was, at one point, a theory. it's not
today.
it is a reformulation
> and restatement of your observation that you have given me above. Its
> no wonder nobody can tell me who established "differential
> reproductive success"
?? you seem to think that, because we see something happen, that it
can't be a theory. and that is simply wrong. wrong. wrong.
heliocentrism is an observation. with the use of satellites we can SEE
the earth orbit the sun. that's an OBSERVATION. but at one time it was
a THEORY. today it's a FACT.
but, by YOUR definition it's neither. it's in limbo...the same place
the church used to put unbaptized dead babies
IOW you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
. You can't establishd a discovery and
> observation you can only attempt to provide an independant
> specification.
no one knows what a 'specification' is. those of us who do science
dont use the term except when we're buying equipment and trying to
beat the hell out of a vendor to make it cheap.
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> On May 25, 1:48 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > generation differ from its parent population? \\
> > ever hear of differential reproduction? another fact...
>
> Differential means not the same or non-similar. There is not a single
> tiger in existance that is an exact carbon copy of another tiger -
> they differ.
wow. talk about missing the point.
i didn't say 'differential'.
i said differential REPRODUCTION. one word makes all the
difference...so to speak
>
> If you had written "Ever heared of reproduction" you would have said
> exactly the same. Why do evolutionists keep on saying the same obvious
> thing: Ofspring of tigers differ. No kidding, is this an observation
> or a theory? Do you see how confused your language is?
uh, no. read it again. and this time, read it for what it says rather
than for what you WISH it said.
differential reproduction is NOT the fact that tigers differ, but that
they differ in their rates of reproduction.
and THAT is how evolution happens.
so, again, you're welcome to insert whatever words you want into my
mouth. but i'm not gonna pretend i put 'em there...
John Wilkins
backspace
> differential reproduction is NOT the fact that tigers differ, but that
> they differ in their rates of reproduction.
> and THAT is how evolution happens.
You have equivocated an observation "tigers differ in their rates of
reproduction" and told me that it is "evolution".
But this is not a theory just a restatement of your observation
conflated with an arbitrary word.
Peter Pan
> On May 26, 2:58 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > differential reproduction is NOT the fact that tigers differ, but that
> > they differ in their rates of reproduction.
> > and THAT is how evolution happens.
>
> You have equivocated an observation "tigers differ in their rates of
> reproduction" and told me that it is "evolution".
Based on your quote, it looks like this person
is claiming that differential reproduction is
how evolution happens.
backspace
> Based on your quote, it looks like this person
> is claiming that differential reproduction is
> how evolution happens.
what has this got to do with a the word "Evolution" and the reason I
state so is that even Eugenie Scott said:"Why do we assume that the
fossils is the only evidence for Evolution." demonstrating my other
thread that this whole "evolution" word is not defined.
Mark Nutter
> On May 26, 8:12 pm, Peter Pan <peterpan666...@gmail.com> wrote:> Based on your quote, it looks like this person
> > is claiming that differential reproduction is
> > how evolution happens.
>
> No, he stated the obvious fact that differential reproduction happens
> what has this got to do with a the word "Evolution"
Differential reproduction means that succeeding generations, over
time, will tend to become more and more different from earlier ones.
Another name for this phenomena is "evolution." It's not a theory,
like you've pointed out. It's a fact.
> and the reason I
> state so is that even Eugenie Scott said:"Why do we assume that the
> fossils is the only evidence for Evolution." demonstrating my other
> thread that this whole "evolution" word is not defined.
She's quite right. Fossils are not the only evidence for evolution.
But they do a good job of showing differential reproduction, and how
it produces new species over time.
m
backspace
> She's quite right. Fossils are not the only evidence for evolution.
> But they do a good job of showing differential reproduction, and how
> it produces new species over time.
a single transitional fossil for which a watertight case can be made
out. And the fact that evolutionists keep on talking about a generic
"fossil evidence" yet never tell us exactly which fossil seems to
support ICR.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On May 26, 11:18 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> She's quite right. Fossils are not the only evidence for evolution.
>> But they do a good job of showing differential reproduction, and how
>> it produces new species over time.
>Which fossil established by whom? http://www.icr.org says there is not
>a single transitional fossil for which a watertight case can be made
>out.
They are liars. No, they are not mistake, not just deluded, they do
know they are lying.
> And the fact that evolutionists keep on talking about a generic
>"fossil evidence" yet never tell us exactly which fossil seems to
>support ICR.
With a few exceptions all fossils are transitional.
--
Bob.
backspace
> With a few exceptions all fossils are transitional.
Timberwoof
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ICR, the Institute for Creation research, is not a reputable research
organization. They violate fundamental scientific principles by being
beholden to a specific interpretation of the research. In this case,
they are lying: there are such fossils.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Oh dear, what a shame you elect to show your stupidity so openly on
usenet. Ok. Some points for you to consider:-
Fossilization is a very rare process, and even at its best can in most
cases only preserve the skeletal structure.
Many of the species of animals alive today can only be distinguished
from thie close relatives by non-skeletal methods.
Of many species that have been fossilized only single specimins have
so far been found.
Of many species that have been fossilized where multiple specimins
have so far been found it is often a case that may miles and/or years
seperate their living.
Only were family/herd groups are found, or where conditions have
allowed large number of individuals to be fossilized over a period of
time, can we really be sure any two fossiles are of exactly the same
species.
Therefore - by reasoning, most fossils are transitional.
QED.
Hope this helps explain things. Any questions?
--
Bob.
wf...@comcast.net
>On May 27, 10:13 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> With a few exceptions all fossils are transitional.
>Says who published where?
he's getting tedious, isn't he? he's not too bright...he's latched
onto the 'i'm stupid so educate me about evolution or i'll say it's
wrong' blackmail method...
Mark Nutter
> On 27 May 2007 08:03:27 -0700, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 27, 10:13 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> With a few exceptions all fossils are transitional.
> >Says who published where?
>
> he's getting tedious, isn't he? he's not too bright...he's latched
> onto the 'i'm stupid so educate me about evolution or i'll say it's
> wrong' blackmail method...
Yeah, his posts do tend to support a diagnosis of Phallocephalus
pseudonymus.
m
Noelie S. Alito
No! No! No!
This has *not* been published on the ICR web site, so
it can't possibly be right! After all, if someone
at www.icr.org says there are no transitional fossils,
who are you to argue with mere facts and logic?
> Hope this helps explain things. Any questions?
Have you taken an oath to ignore any evidence that
conflicts with Scripture, like the ICR has? If
not, then how can "backspace" take it seriously?
Noelie
--
<my_first_name>2007@<capital_of_Texas>.rr.com
Ye Old One
I stand corrected :)
>
>
>
>> Hope this helps explain things. Any questions?
>
>Have you taken an oath to ignore any evidence that
>conflicts with Scripture, like the ICR has? If
>not, then how can "backspace" take it seriously?
I do think he should change his moniker to Emptyspace to match what is
between his ears.
>
>
>Noelie
--
Bob.
Peter Pan
> On May 26, 4:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 8:12 pm, Peter Pan <peterpan666...@gmail.com> wrote:> Based on your quote, it looks like this person
> > > is claiming that differential reproduction is
> > > how evolution happens.
>
> > No, he stated the obvious fact that differential reproduction happens
> > what has this got to do with a the word "Evolution"
>
> Differential reproduction means that succeeding generations, over
> time, will tend to become more and more different from earlier ones.
> Another name for this phenomena is "evolution." It's not a theory,
> like you've pointed out. It's a fact.
Sorry, differential reproduction is insufficient to account for
evolution.
Mark Nutter
It is not insufficient to *be* evolution, however, given a real-world
context that includes such things as mutation, genetic drift,
geographical isolation and regional/chronological variations in the
environment.
m
Mark Nutter
> On May 26, 11:18 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:> She's quite right. Fossils are not the only evidence for evolution.
> > But they do a good job of showing differential reproduction, and how
> > it produces new species over time.
>
> a single transitional fossil for which a watertight case can be made
> out. And the fact that evolutionists keep on talking about a generic
> "fossil evidence" yet never tell us exactly which fossil seems to
> support ICR.
I don't think you'll find any fossils that support ICR. Nobody's ever
found any evidence of a non-transitional species, either, and
according to ICR, there ought to be even more of those than the
allegedly missing transitionals.
m
Peter Pan
> On May 29, 10:51 am, Peter Pan <peterpan55...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 5:18 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 4:14 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 26, 8:12 pm, Peter Pan <peterpan666...@gmail.com> wrote:> Based on your quote, it looks like this person
> > > > > is claiming that differential reproduction is
> > > > > how evolution happens.
>
> > > > No, he stated the obvious fact that differential reproduction happens
> > > > what has this got to do with a the word "Evolution"
>
> > > Differential reproduction means that succeeding generations, over
> > > time, will tend to become more and more different from earlier ones.
> > > Another name for this phenomena is "evolution." It's not a theory,
> > > like you've pointed out. It's a fact.
>
> > Sorry, differential reproduction is insufficient to account for
> > evolution.
>
> It is not insufficient to *be* evolution, however, given a real-world
> context
Thank you for admitting differential reproduction is
hersheyhv
Do you have some evidence to support this astounding claim? What you
have just made is a "rate" claim. You, whether you recognize it or
not, made a claim that observable rates of change (morphological or
sequence) are too slow to accomplish what has been observed in
nature. In evolutionary terms, for example, that would mean that you
have evidence that the rate of change in, say, relative cranial
capacity, between humans and some ancestral anthropoid was too fast to
have occurred over the time available by any observable natural
mechanism. Or that the rate of increase in size between elephants and
one of their much smaller ancestors was too fast to have occurred over
the time available given the rates of change in morphology or sequence
that can be experimentally observed today.
The truth, however, is that, at the DNA sequence level, most
evolutionary change has been due to random drift and fixation because
most of the change has been selectively neutral. The rate of fixation
of selectively neutral changes can be experimentally determined and
mathematically calculated precisely because it is due to chance
events.
My claim is that the *observed* amount of change in overall DNA
sequences (genomes) of most organisms (where most of the change would
be neutral) is actually *less* (although for organisms with a lot of
"junk", not significantly less) than could have been accomplished by
neutral drift *alone* (and rates of drift-fixation is definitely many
times slower than selection) *in the time available* given all the
known ways that genomes and phenotypes can change. And that is an
assertion that can be backed up with data (but I am too lazy to find
it right now), unlike yours.
But, you first. What is your evidence that the observed rate of
change in DNA or protein sequences between two organisms that evolved
from a common ancestor (say, chimps and humans) is too fast to have
been accomplished by either neutral drift or selection *given the time
available* for this divergence? What is your evidence that the rate
of morphological change (say, increase in cranial capcacity in
lineages leading to modern humans, which is one of the fastest natural
rates seen) is too fast to be accomplished by natural selection means,
given known rates of morphological change due to selection (and
existing variant populations)?
Desertphile
wrote:
Nobody said it is.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
backspace
> The truth, however, is that, at the DNA sequence level, most
> evolutionary change has been due to random drift and fixation because
> most of the change has been selectively neutral.
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, it's random drift in the sense the term is used by evolutionary
scientists, and whose meaning is made clear in the context in which it
is used if there is any chance of ambiguity in the introduction to any
paper which describes or concludes random drift.
Here is an example in which the authors define random drift in
mathematical terms:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/120/3/791
If you are not clear what random drift means in this particular
context, please feel free to ask questions. I'm sure that contributors
to this forum will be very willing to explain anything which you don't
understand.
However, I suggest that you don't even attempt some silly semantic
argument on the authority by which such terms are established. As in
all language, terms are established by useage, not authority. The
difference between science and colloquial language is that scientists,
by defining and redefining the terms they use, try to be as clear as
possible about what they mean.
RF
backspace
> However, I suggest that you don't even attempt some silly semantic
> argument on the authority by which such terms are established. As in
> all language, terms are established by useage, not authority. The
> difference between science and colloquial language is that scientists,
> by defining and redefining the terms they use, try to be as clear as
> possible about what they mean.
Lets look again at the phrase "Natural Selection". The word "natural"
and the word "selection" seperatly considered has meaning/meanings
that we all accept as the words are used in a relevant context. The
trouble comes in with concatenating the two words to form a technical
jargon phrase in a science like biology. Shannon for example coined
"Signal to noise ratio". "Signal to noise ratio" has zero meaning if
we are not clear what we mean by it in communication theory and cite
the author of the phrase and what he meant by it. Darwin made clear
what he meant by "Natural Selection" - 'survival of the fittest". And
'survival of the fittest" is obvious nonsense. So I am trying to help
you evolutionists by pointing out that you can't be refering to Darwin
when using the the phrase "Natural Selection" because it must have an
exact technical meaning. So who is this person that established the
phrase "Natural Selection" in the same sense Shannon established his
technical terms? "Natural Selection" has zero meaning if you don't
tell me who is the person that coined it post Darwin and what did he
mean by the phrase. We can't all have our own adhoc technical jargon
terms in scientific diciplines.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On May 31, 3:28 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > However, I suggest that you don't even attempt some silly semantic
> > argument on the authority by which such terms are established. As in
> > all language, terms are established by useage, not authority. The
> > difference between science and colloquial language is that scientists,
> > by defining and redefining the terms they use, try to be as clear as
> > possible about what they mean.
>
> Lets look again at the phrase "Natural Selection". The word "natural"
> and the word "selection" seperatly considered has meaning/meanings
> that we all accept as the words are used in a relevant context. The
> trouble comes in with concatenating the two words to form a technical
> jargon phrase in a science like biology. Shannon for example coined
> "Signal to noise ratio". "Signal to noise ratio" has zero meaning if
> we are not clear what we mean by it in communication theory and cite
> the author of the phrase and what he meant by it. Darwin made clear
> what he meant by "Natural Selection" - 'survival of the fittest". And
> 'survival of the fittest" is obvious nonsense.
And Darwin neither coined nor used the phrase.
He made clear what he meant by "Natural Selection" by writing a book
about it in which he described what he meant clearly and in exhaustive
detail.
> So I am trying to help
> you evolutionists by pointing out that you can't be refering to Darwin
> when using the the phrase "Natural Selection" because it must have an
> exact technical meaning.
Bollocks.
Try reading "The Orgin of Species".
> So who is this person that established the
> phrase "Natural Selection" in the same sense Shannon established his
> technical terms
Charles Darwin. In his book "The Origin of Species". Evolutionary
biologists have used the term ever since, and are perfectly clear on
what it means.
?> "Natural Selection" has zero meaning if you don't
> tell me who is the person that coined it post Darwin and what did he
> mean by the phrase. We can't all have our own adhoc technical jargon
> terms in scientific diciplines.
Quite so. Which is why we don't in biology, and if there is any doubt
as to the meaning of a word it's meaning is defined clearly.
I note that you snipped without marking the part of my post in which I
demonstrated that scientists are explicitly clear on what is meant by
genetic drift, so I'll be watching to see if you lie about not having
been provided with a definition.
But please carry making yourself look dogmatically stupid. As I have
stated repeatedly, one of my reasons for posting here is to expose the
ignorance and dishonesty of creationists. Your valuable contribution
is received with gratitude.
RF
hersheyhv
No. Neutral (selectively neutral) evolution, which results in "random
drift", is an addition to the older mechanisms of evolution, which
involve selection of various sorts (including sexual). It would have
been hard to observe this type of evolution at the time of Darwin
because most such evolution is only "visible" at the level of sequence
differences and not, as Darwin was limited to, phenotypic differences.
hersheyhv
Let me clarify. Random drift is the type of evolutionary change that
occurs in the *absence* of significant levels of selection. IOW, the
very nature of biological inheritance ensures that there will either
be selection or no selection against a new mutation. That is, any new
mutation will either be disfavorable relative to the current most
common variant in the local environment, have no phenotypic
consequence in this local environment, or will be favorable in the
local environment.
Both types of significant *selective* change is causally affected by
the local conditions (favorable or disfavorable) and represent what is
meant by "natural selection" either for or (more frequently) against
the new mutation. In the absence of such significant selection by the
local environment, the continuing presence of a new mutation in a
population in subsequent generations will be purely a matter of
chance. There is a certain mathematical probabilty that any new
*selectively irrelevant* variation will "randomly drift" to fixation
via a random walk.
It has been the major finding of sequencing of proteins and genomes
that *most* change seen in genomes is due to "random drift" rather
than "positive or negative selection". That is, in terms of the
*percent* of sequence difference due to selection, that is clearly a
very small fraction of *observed* change.
John Wilkins
> On May 31, 9:09 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 30, 7:45 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu wrote:
> > > The truth, however, is that, at the DNA sequence level, most
> > > evolutionary change has been due to random drift and fixation because
> > > most of the change has been selectively neutral.
> >
> > This "random drift" is this now in the Darwinian sense?
>
> Let me clarify. Random drift is the type of evolutionary change that
> occurs in the *absence* of significant levels of selection. IOW, the
> very nature of biological inheritance ensures that there will either
> be selection or no selection against a new mutation. That is, any new
> mutation will either be disfavorable relative to the current most
> common variant in the local environment, have no phenotypic
> consequence in this local environment, or will be favorable in the
> local environment.
I wonder if that is strictly true, and perhaps you can advise me. It
seems that selection occurs when there is a differential between
alleles. If you have a population of two alleles, both of which are high
fitness relative to some other alleles not in that particular
population, and of roughly equivalent fitness to each other, then you
could have drift in the *presence* of high selective pressure (just not
discriminating between these two alleles).
>
> Both types of significant *selective* change is causally affected by
> the local conditions (favorable or disfavorable) and represent what is
> meant by "natural selection" either for or (more frequently) against
> the new mutation. In the absence of such significant selection by the
> local environment, the continuing presence of a new mutation in a
> population in subsequent generations will be purely a matter of
> chance. There is a certain mathematical probabilty that any new
> *selectively irrelevant* variation will "randomly drift" to fixation
> via a random walk.
>
> It has been the major finding of sequencing of proteins and genomes
> that *most* change seen in genomes is due to "random drift" rather
> than "positive or negative selection". That is, in terms of the
> *percent* of sequence difference due to selection, that is clearly a
> very small fraction of *observed* change.
--
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."
hersheyhv
> hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> > On May 31, 9:09 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On May 30, 7:45 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu wrote:
> > > > The truth, however, is that, at the DNA sequence level, most
> > > > evolutionary change has been due to random drift and fixation because
> > > > most of the change has been selectively neutral.
>
> > > This "random drift" is this now in the Darwinian sense?
>
> > Let me clarify. Random drift is the type of evolutionary change that
> > occurs in the *absence* of significant levels of selection. IOW, the
> > very nature of biological inheritance ensures that there will either
> > be selection or no selection against a new mutation. That is, any new
> > mutation will either be disfavorable relative to the current most
> > common variant in the local environment, have no phenotypic
> > consequence in this local environment, or will be favorable in the
> > local environment.
>
> I wonder if that is strictly true, and perhaps you can advise me. It
> seems that selection occurs when there is a differential between
> alleles.
A statistically *significant* differential.
> If you have a population of two alleles, both of which are high
> fitness relative to some other alleles not in that particular
> population, and of roughly equivalent fitness to each other, then you
> could have drift in the *presence* of high selective pressure (just not
> discriminating between these two alleles).
But there would not, then, be any *differential* fitness for the two
alleles being examined in your example. These two alleles are
selectively neutral wrt each other. And since there *would* be
*differential* fitness between either of these alleles and others that
would arise (by mutation), these two alleles would be selectively
advantageous relative to these other alleles.
In most cases, selection will involve a pairwise comparison of two
alternate alleles of a gene in diploid organisms simply because two is
the maximum number of alleles of a specific gene locus present in a
diploid organism. Other alleles in the population are usually
irrelevant (an exception is given below), since selection typically
occurs at the level of the diploid individual and its *phenotype*
(selection always works on phenotype and affects population gene
frequencies only indirectly due to acting on phenotype), not the
frequency of alleles in the population. One must understand, of
course, that there are three possible *genotypes* for two alternate
alleles (AA, Aa, and aa), and each genotype can (but usually don't; in
most cases phenotypes show dominance/recessiveness) have a different
selective values (this is important in cases where the heterozygous
state has a value different from either homozygote, as in sickle
cell).
Exceptions: 1) Polyploid genomes or duplicate genes. In this case, it
might be possible for an allele like sickle cell to be present in a
homozygous state in one copy of the gene and the w.t. allele to be
homozygous in the other, providing the malaria resistance advantages
of the sickle cell allele without the disadvantages of the
homozygosity that would occur if they were alternate alleles of the
same gene. Such a duplication event, were it to happen, would have an
advantage even in the intermediate organisms with one chromosome
having the HbS - HbA duplication and the other being HbA or, even,
possibly HbS.
2) Frequency-dependent selection. In this case, the *frequency* of
other alleles in the population *does* matter. For example, self-
sterility alleles in plants. 'Rare' alleles are selective favored
precisely because they are rare. In such cases, there can be many,
many alternate alleles in the population at this gene locus.
backspace
> And Darwin neither coined nor used the phrase.
> He made clear what he meant by "Natural Selection" by writing a book
> about it in which he described what he meant clearly and in exhaustive
> detail.
"CHAPTER IV.
NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST."
"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."
"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"
"ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ACTION OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE SURVIVAL OF
THE FITTEST."
It is clear from these quotes that the phrase "Natural Selection" as a
technical jargon phrase used by Darwin he was refering to the
"Survival of the Fittest". I am at a loss as to why you say Darwin
neither coined nor used the phrase
"Survival of the Fittest". He used it 16 times in his book. So again I
ask the question: You are obviously not stateing that those that
survived , survived and those that did'nt are dead when using the
phrase "Natural Selection" as used by Darwin, so then to which author
of a different version of "Natural Selection" are you refering to
when using the phrase "Natural Selection"?
backspace
> > This "random drift" is this now in the Darwinian sense?
> No. Neutral (selectively neutral) evolution, which results in "random
> drift", is an addition to the older mechanisms of evolution, which
> involve selection of various sorts (including sexual). It would have
> been hard to observe this type of evolution at the time of Darwin
> because most such evolution is only "visible" at the level of sequence
> differences and not, as Darwin was limited to, phenotypic differences.
By now you must have read my other posts where I pointed out that
Darwin did'nt use the phrase "Random Mutations" or random anything
else. Who then established the concept of "random drift"?
Fact: Darwin never used the "Neutral Evolution". "Neutral Evolution"
is a technical jargon term that only has meaning if the you tell me
who is the individual that established this principle of "Neutral
Evolution". Presently it could mean anything. You know this stuff is
really fun, imagine we could all just invent our own phrases in
mathematics.... you know just willy nilly use technical jargon terms
like "Fourier Transform" without having to state who established it
and when. And when dealing with biological life we are dealing with
something so vast and complicated as a problem in Information theory
compared to the Fourier Transform that we can't even state the
problem....
Another problem is the single usage of the word "Selection" without
anything getting "naturaled". Darwin was very clear what he meant by
it, he always refered to it in a the sense of a human doing some
"Selection".
Darwin: "...and the latter process he attributes to man's power of
selection." By your statement:"....older mechanisms of evolution,
which involve selection of various sorts (including sexual)"
you again can't be using the word "selection" in the sense Darwin used
it, because your statement does'nt imply that some human did conscious
teleological "selections". . And what are these "older mechanisms of
evolution, which journal published these "older mechanisms" or are you
just using words for its rhetorical effect?
backspace
> could have drift in the *presence* of high selective pressure (just not
> discriminating between these two alleles).
Darwin did'nt use the phrase "Selective pressure" (boy this is fun!)
so which author established the principle of "Selective pressure"?
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Lets look again at the phrase "Natural Selection". The word "natural"
>and the word "selection" seperatly considered has meaning/meanings
>that we all accept as the words are used in a relevant context. The
>trouble comes in with concatenating the two words to form a technical
>jargon phrase in a science like biology. Shannon for example coined
>"Signal to noise ratio". "Signal to noise ratio" has zero meaning if
>we are not clear what we mean by it in communication theory and cite
>the author of the phrase and what he meant by it. Darwin made clear
>what he meant by "Natural Selection" - 'survival of the fittest".
well, there's always 'differential reproduction'...which IS the
mechanism of evolution...
And
>'survival of the fittest" is obvious nonsense.
which is why biologists dont use it and creationists do.
So I am trying to help
>you evolutionists
kind of like an arsonist helping the fire dept...
by pointing out that you can't be refering to Darwin
>when using the the phrase "Natural Selection" because it must have an
>exact technical meaning. So who is this person that established the
>phrase "Natural Selection" in the same sense Shannon established his
>technical terms? "Natural Selection" has zero meaning if you don't
>tell me who is the person that coined it post Darwin and what did he
>mean by the phrase. We can't all have our own adhoc technical jargon
>terms in scientific diciplines.
sure we can. that's one of the points to a science. as mechanisms
develop the jargon naturally gets more arcane
you're welcome to try and force fit it to your theology. you will
fail, of course, as you know you will. you and a million other
islamists/christianists will continue to try and destroy science.
good luck
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>By now you must have read my other posts where I pointed out that
>Darwin did'nt use the phrase "Random Mutations" or random anything
>else. Who then established the concept of "random drift"?
>Fact: Darwin never used the "Neutral Evolution". "Neutral Evolution"
>is a technical jargon term that only has meaning if the you tell me
>who is the individual that established this principle
guess he thinks that chemistry has no meaning if we can't determine
who the first chemist was to use the term 'atom' in its contemporary
sense...
makes no sense at all...but, then, of course, neither does god. i
wonder if he can tell us who used the term 'god' first, and if he
believes the bible is meaningless unless we can determine that.
Ferrous Patella
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> did'nt
I politely request you stop doing this. I have enough trouble not doing
it myself without getting this reinforcement.
--
Ferrous Patella
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
backspace
> >Lets look again at the phrase "Natural Selection". The word "natural"
> >and the word "selection" seperatly considered has meaning/meanings
> >that we all accept as the words are used in a relevant context. The
> >trouble comes in with concatenating the two words to form a technical
> >jargon phrase in a science like biology. Shannon for example coined
> >"Signal to noise ratio". "Signal to noise ratio" has zero meaning if
> >we are not clear what we mean by it in communication theory and cite
> >the author of the phrase and what he meant by it. Darwin made clear
> >what he meant by "Natural Selection" - 'survival of the fittest".
> well, there's always 'differential reproduction'...which IS the
> mechanism of evolution...
Darwin never used the prase "Differential reproduction". The phrase
has no meaning if you don't tell me who coined it as a technical term
and what did the author mean by it. This is an excellent example of
how everybody just dreams up their own "mechanisms". Others tell me
that "Natural Selection" is the mechanism, but they can't tell me who
established it as the mechanism and where did he publish his
findings.
backspace
> guess he thinks that chemistry has no meaning if we can't determine
> who the first chemist was to use the term 'atom' in its contemporary
> sense...
> makes no sense at all...but, then, of course, neither does god. i
> wonder if he can tell us who used the term 'god' first, and if he
> believes the bible is meaningless unless we can determine that.
This is the sort of objection that nobody from philosphy department
will dare make because it makes one look and I am trying to be kind
here mmh "uneducated". So for people who actually take this objection
serious allow me then to explain, it is so very easy to understand.
"Love", "mountain", are words that have been with us since the dawn
of mankind. They are in a sense axiomatic statements like 1+1 = 2. It
was simply given to us by God. But we were not given the phrase
"signal-to-noise-ratio". That is a technical jargon phrase in
information theory that was coined by a human namely Shannon. In the
same way "reproductive success" was only coined as a technical term
about a 100 years ago I guess. We don't know who the author is since
the phrase has no meaning if we don't agree on an individual or date
or publication that established the concept. Thus far it means
anything you want it to mean. The confusion is most accute with a
phrase like "Natural Selection" ,it has no meaning if the person who
coined it doesn't define it. And Darwin did define it as "Survival of
the Fittest". A phrase so embarrasing to Evolutionists that you don't
see much of it. I am just pointing out that because of this
evolutionists can't use the phrase "Natural Selection" since they
don't believe in "Survival of the Fittest." If another person
redefined the meaning then they must first tell us who this person is.
At present given their disdain of "surFittest" they simply can't use
the phrase.
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On May 31, 6:29 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > And Darwin neither coined nor used the phrase.
> > He made clear what he meant by "Natural Selection" by writing a book
> > about it in which he described what he meant clearly and in exhaustive
> > detail.
>
> "CHAPTER IV.
> NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST."
>
> "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."
>
> "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"
>
> "ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ACTION OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE SURVIVAL OF
> THE FITTEST."
>
> It is clear from these quotes that the phrase "Natural Selection" as a
> technical jargon phrase used by Darwin he was refering to the
> "Survival of the Fittest". I am at a loss as to why you say Darwin
> neither coined nor used the phrase
He didn't coin the phrase.
He used it occasionally, and I am wrong in saying that he didn't.
He did not use the phrase in the first edition, which shows that it
was not central to his description of natural selection.
He uses it in the 6th edition. However, he makes it very clear what he
means by "Natural Selection". It is the observation that as all living
organisms produce more progeny than the resources of the environment
can support, there is a competition for those resources and those
which survive are the fittest in respect of the environment.
> "Survival of the Fittest". He used it 16 times in his book. So again I
> ask the question: You are obviously not stateing that those that
> survived , survived and those that did'nt are dead when using the
> phrase "Natural Selection" as used by Darwin, so then to which author
> of a different version of "Natural Selection" are you refering to
> when using the phrase "Natural Selection"?
Stop pretending that there is any ambiguity in the way in which Darwin
or any of his successors uses the terms. There isn't. Scientists are
clear about what they mean, and seek to clarify the meaning if there
is any ambiguity.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
I told you exactly who published it and where. To repost
"Charles Darwin. In his book "The Origin of Species". Evolutionary
biologists have used the term ever since, and are perfectly clear on
what it means. "
So stop lying.
It doesn't add weight to your argument.
RF
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 1, 4:04 am, w...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >Lets look again at the phrase "Natural Selection". The word "natural"
>> >and the word "selection" seperatly considered has meaning/meanings
>> >that we all accept as the words are used in a relevant context. The
>> >trouble comes in with concatenating the two words to form a technical
>> >jargon phrase in a science like biology. Shannon for example coined
>> >"Signal to noise ratio". "Signal to noise ratio" has zero meaning if
>> >we are not clear what we mean by it in communication theory and cite
>> >the author of the phrase and what he meant by it. Darwin made clear
>> >what he meant by "Natural Selection" - 'survival of the fittest".
>
>> well, there's always 'differential reproduction'...which IS the
>> mechanism of evolution...
>
>Darwin never used the prase "Differential reproduction".
and few inventors of quantum mechanics used the term 'quantum
mechanics'. and who was the first person to use the term 'god'?
if you're a creationist, it makes no sense to believe in god unless
you can tell us who invented the term and how it was used.
The phrase
>has no meaning if you don't tell me who coined it as a technical term
irrelevant. the phrase has meaning. words have meaning. your assertion
is, itself, meaningess
>and what did the author mean by it.
what did the person who first used the term 'god' mean by it? who
coined the term 'atom' and does it mean the same today as it did then?
does this make chemistry invalid?
IOW your line of thought...such as it is...is inherently illogical. it
is unnecessary to trace the first use of a term to know its meaning
today.
This is an excellent example of
>how everybody just dreams up their own "mechanisms". Others tell me
>that "Natural Selection" is the mechanism, but they can't tell me who
>established it as the mechanism and where did he publish his
>findings.
and who published the first use of the term 'god'? does this mean god
doesn't exist?
you tell me.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 1, 4:07 am, w...@comcast.net wrote:
>> guess he thinks that chemistry has no meaning if we can't determine
>> who the first chemist was to use the term 'atom' in its contemporary
>> sense...
>> makes no sense at all...but, then, of course, neither does god. i
>> wonder if he can tell us who used the term 'god' first, and if he
>> believes the bible is meaningless unless we can determine that.
>
>This is the sort of objection that nobody from philosphy department
>will dare make because it makes one look and I am trying to be kind
>here mmh "uneducated"
uh huh. and it must be true because you say it's true.
. So for people who actually take this objection
>serious allow me then to explain, it is so very easy to understand.
>"Love", "mountain", are words that have been with us since the dawn
>of mankind.
and so has the term 'evolution'. so has the term 'atom'. so your
objection is simply unfounded since both of THOSE terms are still in
use. if your objection is that evolution has no meaning, then neither
does the term 'god', 'salvation', 'resurrection', etc. for the same
reason.
They are in a sense axiomatic statements like 1+1 = 2. It
>was simply given to us by God.
ah. it was simply 'given' to us by god...
uh huh. but that STILL doesn't tell us what god is. is your objection
that words DONT have meaning unless we can tell where they came from
EXCEPT those words that YOU PERSONALLY think should get a special
pass?
uh...you were saying about appearing uneducated? ever hear of 'special
pleading'?
But we were not given the phrase
>"signal-to-noise-ratio".
to use YOUR argument: signal had a meaning. so did 'noise'. unless we
can determine who first used THOSE words and how they were used, then
the 'concatenation' (sic) is useless...
that's YOUR argument, not mine, sport.
That is a technical jargon phrase in
>information theory that was coined by a human namely Shannon. In the
>same way "reproductive success" was only coined as a technical term
>about a 100 years ago I guess. We don't know who the author is since
>the phrase has no meaning if we don't agree on an individual or date
>or publication that established the concept
and neither does the term 'god'. unless, it seems, YOU decide that a
term is OK because it's OK with you...no reason...it's just...OK...
. Thus far it means
>anything you want it to mean. The confusion is most accute with a
>phrase like "Natural Selection" ,it has no meaning if the person who
>coined it doesn't define it. And Darwin did define it as "Survival of
>the Fittest". A phrase so embarrasing to Evolutionists that you don't
>see much of it. I am just pointing out that because of this
>evolutionists can't use the phrase "Natural Selection" since they
>don't believe in "Survival of the Fittest." If another person
>redefined the meaning then they must first tell us who this person is.
>At present given their disdain of "surFittest" they simply can't use
>the phrase.
>
science, unlike religion, grows over time. it accumulates concepts and
theories.
now, i know that, as a creationist, you abhor knowledge. but that's
how science works. concepts and theories are tested and honed.
religion is incapable of adding to knowledge precisely for the reasons
you yourself show: it engages in meaningess arguments about terms that
have no meaning and do not allow for rational analysis.
you yourself demonstrated that above when you separated 'god' from
'atom', and 'evolution'...all of which have been in use for thousands
of years. you yourself engaged in special pleading for the word
'god'...
then tried to tell us you didn't need to explain it because you were
educated.