Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Fitness(wiped) uses Tyndall's interpretation of Democritus

4 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 6:10:32 AM2/8/10
to
== Wikipedia's Fitness article uses John Tyndall's interpetation of
Democritus ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest uses
[[JohnTyndall]'s interpretation of [[DemoCritus]]:
"....That great enigma, ''''the exquisite adaptation of one part of an
organism to another part, and to the conditions of life,''' more
especially the construction of the human body, Democritus made no
attempt to solve....."

Which was reformulated as "... Darwin meant it is a metaphor for
"'''better adapted for immediate, local environment'''", not the
common inference of "in the best physical shape....." on Wikipedia

[[JohnTyndall]]'s "...The exquisite adaptation of one part of an
organism to another part, and to the conditions of life..." reduces
to
"....the adaptation of ... an organism .... to its environment...."

The conditions of life an organism experiences is not a geographical
location but is defined in terms of its attributes. A description of
such an environment is rendered in terms of the attributes of the
creature in the same way that the SQL computer code environment is
described in terms of its attributes. Such an environment like the
destination of an IP packet on the Internet isn't a physical location.
There are two senses to the word environment: 'Conditions of life'
and 'geographical location' sense. Wikipedia's Fitness article used it
in the 'Conditions of life' sense. Note that the word "random" can
also be used in two senses, the "probability sampling"(http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampling#Quota_sampling) or "non-
random" sense and in the devoid of all intent sense.

As the organism's environment is already described by its attributes
it can't be adapted TO its environment. To a greater extent can't it
be "better adapted" to its environment. The SQL code can't be adapted
to its environment, neither can it be better adapted. With an organism
we are dealing with a more advanced code than SQL a mechatronic AI
algorithmic processing device that also flips switches , just like SQL
code flips transistors on and off: It makes no sense to talk of SQL
being adapted to its environment, likewise it makes no sense talk of
organisms being adapted to their environment. An environment logically
entails a description of a set of attributes.

With the "Adaption/environment" clause we are only referring to one
thing, as adaption describes an environment or conditions of life,
melting pot or set of social and cultural conditions affecting a
community. '''Fitness isn't a measurable quality'''. A creature is, by
being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts
or genes. If genes constitute the creature, then they don't also
require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist. I don't see
the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like
the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't
apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit,
evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population.

[[JerryFodor]] uses selection in the [[PatterOrDesign]] sense with his
"selection-for" and "selection-about" terms. Having to navigate a
"thought-field" of Democritians he avoids saying what he actually
means: designs vs. patterns. The man is in very difficult position
having to remain firmly inside the closet, his true ID beliefs not
known.
(note this entry is an interpretion of
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/atheism/h32j297jh1newseternal-septemberorg.html)

Kermit

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 3:50:05 PM2/8/10
to
On Feb 8, 3:10�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> == Wikipedia's Fitness article uses John Tyndall's interpetation of
> Democritus ==http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittestuses
> [[JohnTyndall]'s interpretation of [[DemoCritus]]:
> "....That great enigma, ''''the exquisite adaptation of one part of an
> organism to another part, and to the conditions of life,''' more
> especially the construction of the human body, Democritus made no
> attempt to solve....."

The word "Democritus" is nowhere in that article. Since you do not
understand what we post, I see no reason to think that you have
insights into this article. You squeeze it into a Procrustean bed of
inappropriate paraphrases and vacuous synonyms.

>
> Which was reformulated as "... Darwin meant it is a metaphor for
> "'''better adapted for immediate, local environment'''", not the
> common inference of "in the best physical shape....." on Wikipedia

Yes; environmental fitness is not human sports fitness.

>
> [[JohnTyndall]]'s "...The exquisite adaptation of one part of an
> organism to another part, and to the conditions of life..." reduces
> to
> "....the adaptation of ... an organism .... to its �environment...."

At some point it must be explained to the reader what "the
environment" means. With every paraphrase you remove meaning from you
word games. Is this because when the original, full of meaning, is
read, you cannot refute it?

>
> The conditions of life an organism experiences is not a geographical
> location but is defined in terms of its attributes. A description of
> such an environment is rendered in terms of the attributes of the
> creature in the same way that the SQL computer code environment is
> described in terms of its attributes. Such an environment like the
> destination of an IP packet on the Internet isn't a physical location.
> There are two senses to �the word environment: 'Conditions of life'
> and 'geographical location' sense. Wikipedia's Fitness article used it
> in the 'Conditions of life' sense. Note that the word "random" can
> also be used in two senses, the "probability sampling"(http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampling#Quota_sampling) or "non-
> random" sense and in the devoid of all intent sense.

It should be understood to be the latter in evolutionary biology.
There are chemical and organizational reasons why (for any given
organism) certain mutations are more likely than others, but this
should not be misconstrued to think that they are anything other than
random in regards to the needs of the organisms for its adaptive
advantages.

>
> As the organism's environment is already described by its attributes

No it's not. Every organism in a particular environment is adapted to
it. Do they all describe the environment? One can certainly tell
something of the environment by looking at an organism, but it may
tell you nothing about a feature which is extremely important to
other species. A honeybee can tell you something about temperature
range and perhaps flowers, but its nature will say very little about
the predominant big animal predator.

> it can't be adapted TO its environment. To a greater extent can't it
> be "better adapted" to its environment. The SQL code can't be adapted
> to its environment, neither can it be better adapted. With an organism
> we are dealing with a more advanced code than SQL a mechatronic AI
> algorithmic processing device that also flips switches , just like SQL
> code flips transistors on and off: It makes no sense to talk of SQL
> being adapted to its environment,

I agree. So why are you?

> likewise it makes no sense talk of
> organisms being adapted to their environment. An environment logically
> entails a description of a set of attributes.

No, the environment entails characteristics which can, to a limited
degree, be described. It is not the description; the map is not the
territory.

>
> With the "Adaption/environment" clause we are only referring to one
> thing, as adaption describes an environment or conditions of life,
> melting pot or set of social and cultural conditions affecting a
> community. '''Fitness isn't a measurable quality'''.

Sure it can. measure its reproductive success against its siblings.
Measure the average reproductive rate for that species against the
rate needed to maintain its numbers. We can never be sure we are
looking at all the important metrics; this is true of many things,
perhaps everything.

> A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit.

And if it exists as a creature dying of cold that it cannot handle, by
its nature? Of course oraganisms can be unfit, especially if the
environment changes rapidly (e.g. climate).

> The creature doesn't "have" fit parts
> or genes. If genes constitute the creature, then they don't also
> require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist. I don't see
> the significance of saying that evolution is about populations.

Populations changed over time; they died out, became different,
sometimes becoming several different species. This is what evolution
*is, and evolutionary science is the study of it. Populations change
over time because individuals have differential reproductive success.

> Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals,

Sure it can. Individual organisms are more or less likely to
reproduce in a given environment.

> the term "evolve" can't
> apply to populations.

The proportion of alleles *do change in a populations over time,
whether you like it or not. "Evolution" is the name given to this
process by scientists. It wouldn't matter if it were called "Fred" or
"barkin' joy rides" or "yo' mama"; it would still happen and some
scientists would study it.

> There aren't properties and processes (fit,
> evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population.

I cautiously agree. Because some individuals are more or less fit, the
populations evolve.

>
> [[JerryFodor]] uses selection in the [[PatterOrDesign]] sense with his
> "selection-for" and "selection-about" terms. Having to navigate a
> "thought-field" of Democritians

What evidence do you have that he is thinking of Democritus?

> he avoids saying what he actually
> means: designs vs. patterns.

Evolution is not teleological. But design does not imply that.

From the Online Cambridge Dictionary:
"design
noun
a plan or drawing
Have you seen the designs for the new lobby?
Design is the skill of making plans or drawings for something: She's
an expert in software design.
Design is also the way in which something is arranged or shaped: I
like the design of this microwave oven.
A design is also a pattern used to decorate something: a geometric
design"

> The �man is in �very difficult position
> having to remain firmly inside the closet, his true ID beliefs not
> known.

Where did you learn telepathy?

Even if an idea originated with one person 2500 years ago, current
ideas derived from earlier ones in a chain of understandings and
interactions with other people and ideas over the centuries does not
mean writers are constrained by what that first person.

> (note this entry is an interpretion of

> http://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/atheism/h32j297jh1newseternal-septem...)

Kermit


aganunitsi

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 4:40:23 PM2/8/10
to
On Feb 8, 3:10�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The conditions of life an organism experiences is not a geographical
> location but is defined in terms of its attributes. A description of

You can describe the expected conditions of life by an organism's
attributes, but the universe doesn't give a damn what the organism is
expecting. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition.

> As the organism's environment is already described by its attributes
> it can't be adapted TO its environment. To a greater extent can't it

> be "better adapted" to its environment. An environment logically

"Better adapted" to the environment of it's parents/recent ancestors.
The environment constantly changes. Today's awesome adaptions may be
tomorrow's vestigial structures. Evolution teaches us that every
single one of our ancestors went extinct, one way or another - either
to a dead end, or to a new species. Extinction is always an option, so
whether or not an organism was adapted for it's environment must be
judged in the future.

> community. '''Fitness isn't a measurable quality'''. A creature is, by
> being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts

Some fitness qualities are measurable, but not all of them. One reason
is because fitness is unknown until viable progeny are produced. How
do you know when progeny are viable? When they produce viable progeny
of their own. So it's a bit of a waiting game. Kinda like how you can
tell if some chess moves are great vs awful, but there are still a
multitude of moves that cannot be qualified until the game plays out
some more. And in this chess game, new rules are constantly being
discovered.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 4:50:32 PM2/8/10
to
backspace wrote:

>
> The conditions of life an organism experiences is not a geographical
> location but is defined in terms of its attributes. A description of
> such an environment is rendered in terms of the attributes of the
> creature in the same way that the SQL computer code environment is
> described in terms of its attributes.

You have said some weird stuff but this takes the cake. Among some confused
and fuzzy presentations this week you outrank the lot.

- SQL is not computer code by any normal definition of the word.
- The phrase "SQL computer code environment" has no meaning in this context.
- While relational theory and practice deals with the attributes of objects
it is not self-referential in describing itself in terms of the same
attributes. The attributes of SQL and the models that it can be used to
manipulate are in quite distinct domains.
- But all of the above is rather academic and a side issue because there is
no connection whatsoever between SQL and the life of living organisms.


...snip.....


The SQL code can't be adapted
> to its environment, neither can it be better adapted. With an organism
> we are dealing with a more advanced code than SQL a mechatronic AI
> algorithmic processing device that also flips switches , just like SQL
> code flips transistors on and off: It makes no sense to talk of SQL
> being adapted to its environment, likewise it makes no sense talk of
> organisms being adapted to their environment. An environment logically
> entails a description of a set of attributes.
>

It absolutely makes no sense to talk of SQL being adapted to its
environment. In fact SQL is deliberately intended to be independent of its
environment, for the environment to have no effect on it and it to have no
effect on its environment.. But these little nuggets of fact are rather
cold and lonely because they have absolutely nothing to do with living
organisms and their environment.

Your analogy isn't a poor one it doesn't even exist.

David


RAM

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 6:14:26 PM2/8/10
to
> (note this entry is an interpretion ofhttp://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/atheism/h32j297jh1newseternal-septem...)

If this post is the best you can do; then you need to get some help.
It is pathetic.

Here is a comment I made a couple weeks ago:  So you are a willfully
ignorant fool 
about science qua science who plays word games with
scientific 
descriptions of empirical support for evolution.  And you
pretend you 
have something to say but it is transparently obvious you
don't.

This applies with equal force to this confused patois.


Stephen

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 7:33:10 PM2/8/10
to
On 2/8/2010 5:10 AM, backspace wrote:
[...snip...]

>
> As the organism's environment is already described by its attributes
> it can't be adapted TO its environment. To a greater extent can't it
> be "better adapted" to its environment. The SQL code can't be adapted
> to its environment, neither can it be better adapted. With an organism
> we are dealing with a more advanced code than SQL a mechatronic AI
> algorithmic processing device that also flips switches , just like SQL
> code flips transistors on and off: It makes no sense to talk of SQL
> being adapted to its environment, likewise it makes no sense talk of
> organisms being adapted to their environment. An environment logically
> entails a description of a set of attributes.
>

[...snip rest...]

A fine example of the classic _argumentum de caput in rectum_

johnetho...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 1:27:42 AM2/9/10
to
On Feb 8, 3:10�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip incomprehensible rant>

Amazing - backspace has gotten even more incoherent.


backspace

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:57:42 AM2/9/10
to
On Feb 8, 11:40�pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Some fitness qualities are measurable, but not all of them

On a scale of adaptability 1-10 , how would I measure your adaptation
to your condition of existence ? Magnetic flux is measured using
Gauss , and current is measured in a standardized way. In order to
measure something we agree apon a standardized metric so that 3amps
has some sort conceptual meaning universally understood as the ratio
between voltage and resistance. What standardized metric other than
being in existence was agreed apon to measure the fitness of an
elephant and how would such a measurement differ from a gazelle? If a
pig had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters , on what
scale of porcine fitness would it be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Survival_of_the_fittest#Reproductive_success_not_in_Origin
"....Such misunderstandings have been normal rather than the exception
ever since 1900. This page unfortunately seems to have misunderstood
the meaning the word "fit" had in the 1800s, and it should be
radically revised. "Fit" meant suitable or appropriate. For example,
women of the middle class could often be considered "not a fit wife
for her excellent son"(Anne Bronte's novel "Agnes Grey"). The modern
and usual meaning of the word is a product ot the 1900s, and Darwin
and Spencer had no concept of physical fitness -- a modern luxury. The
old concept "fit" represents in itself a relative quality, relative to
something, , just like the verb "to fit", as a lid fits on its box.
Darwin wanted such a relative concept, so he adopted Spencer's
expression. It expressed "suited or adapted to its environment", which
is exactly his basis for natural selection. It follows that he could
have written "survival of the fit", it expresses almost the same idea.
But "fittest" makes the idea of selection of only the best suited
characteristics clearer. Mondin (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009
(UTC) ...."

One person's view of marriage suitability is dependent on the cultural
context and is subjective.

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 6:10:12 AM2/9/10
to
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:57:42 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 11:40�pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Some fitness qualities are measurable, but not all of them
>
>On a scale of adaptability 1-10 , how would I measure your adaptation
>to your condition of existence

go to 'wikipedia' and look up fitness. it discusses absolute and
relative fitness.

if creationists knew anything about anything, they wouldn't have a
2000 year history of failure

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 6:45:24 AM2/9/10
to
On Feb 9, 8:57�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:40�pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Some fitness qualities are measurable, but not all of them
>
> On a scale of adaptability 1-10 , how would I measure your adaptation
> to your condition of existence ?

Broadly speaking, by counting the proportion of his genes in all the
genes of the next generation.


<snip>

backspace

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 9:36:45 AM2/9/10
to

"...better adapted for immediate, local environment...." like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously is
grammatically correct but meaningless. The structure of sentences and
their meaning are two distinct things, representing two different
levels of language processing.

backspace

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 9:51:42 AM2/9/10
to
On Feb 8, 11:50�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

> �In fact SQL is deliberately intended to be independent of its


> environment, for the environment to have no effect on it and it to have no
> effect on its environment..

SQL is the coda or semantics that conveys the idea of a master/slave
database relationship or dictionary key:value pairs in Python. By
saying SQL, signal sender and signal receiver understand a set of
algorithms that achieves key:value iteration or database mapping.
That's the concept , saying that "..SQL is intended to be independent
of its condition of existence...." is just as meaningless as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously and
"...SQL is adapted to its condition of existence..." Your sentence is
grammatically correct though.

SQL as isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't
be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because
your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being
cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its
attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_elems011.htm
"...A cursor variable declared in a PL/SQL host environment and passed
to PL/SQL as a bind variable. The datatype of the host cursor variable
is compatible with the return type of any PL/SQL cursor variable. Host
variables must be prefixed with a colon......"

Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate ,
linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to
the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?

aganunitsi

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 10:14:36 AM2/9/10
to
On Feb 9, 6:51�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact SQL is deliberately intended to be independent of its
> > environment, for the environment to have no effect on it and it to have no
> > effect on its environment..
>
> SQL is the coda or semantics that conveys the idea of a master/slave
> database relationship or dictionary key:value pairs in Python. By
> saying SQL, �signal sender and signal receiver understand a set of
> algorithms that achieves key:value iteration or database mapping.
> That's the concept , saying that "..SQL is intended to be independent
> of its condition of existence...." is just as meaningless ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiouslyand
> "...SQL is adapted to its condition of existence..." Your sentence is
> grammatically correct though.
>
> SQL as isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't
> be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because
> your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being
> cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its
> attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)
>
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_ele...

> "...A cursor variable declared in a PL/SQL host environment and passed
> to PL/SQL as a bind variable. The datatype of the host cursor variable
> is compatible with the return type of any PL/SQL cursor variable. Host
> variables must be prefixed with a colon......"
>
> Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate ,
> linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to
> the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?

I'm going to rename my cat "Colorless green ideas", just so when he's
in REM sleep, twitching away, I can say "Colorless green ideas sleeps
furiously".

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 10:21:02 AM2/9/10
to

And what has that to do with my answer? You wanted an operational
definition of fitness, I gave you one. It involves counting things.

backspace

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 10:55:32 AM2/9/10
to
On Feb 9, 5:21�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > "...better adapted for immediate, local environment...." likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiouslyis
> > grammatically correct but meaningless. �The structure of sentences and
> > their meaning are two distinct things, representing two different
> > levels of language processing.

> And what has that to do with my answer? You wanted an operational
> definition of fitness, I gave you one. It involves counting things.

Darwin meant 'suitable' , fitness was the synonym for suitable in the
1800's , what would be the operational definition the of suitable and
who has defined what this is .


backspace

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 1:21:30 PM2/9/10
to
Natura non facit saltum, nature makes no sudden leaps. Or "the
condition of existence makes no sudden leaps". Everything that is in a
condition of existence plays out in a linear time trajectory, such a
time can't "jump" into the future speed up or slowdown. I am part of
nature in the sense that my nature is in a condition of existence in
the here and now, my existence isn't slowing down or speeding up. In
the condition of existence sense nature is a synonym for environment.
Try and measure "nature" on a scale of 1-10 and point out where the
demarcation is between sudden and slow in the same way one would
demarcate between a weak and strong magnetic field in Gauss units.
What would be the units of measurement, "naturals" perhaps?

In other words the term "Natura non facit saltum" is just as
meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
By saying that the condition of existence makes no sudden leaps it
invokes an image of increasing or decreasing slopes, such as those
"fitness landscapes" abstractions. Whatever the graphs are supposed to
represent, they can't represent a "fitness landscape" or "suitability
landscape" - there is no such thing that can be measured or calibrated
on scale of -10 to +120 in the same sense an A/D converter Span and
Zero would be calibrated to digitally represent a physical
measurement.. If a "fitness landscape" can be measured how would one
then calibrate its Zero and Span ?

Note that no matter in what context "Natura non facit saltum" is used
with whatever intent(Darwin had a specific intent) it remains just as
invalid as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
in any context.

The same logic applies to "NS acts". A selection is a decision,
decisions aren't "natural" but could be contemplated or hasty,
decisions don't act on anything because only a being can make a
decision or act on something. Neither can one "add in selection" as a
Discovery institute bacterial resistance video narrated by Stephen
Myer claimed. You can't "add in selection" to the bacteria but could
make decisions influencing the outcome of bacteria interacting. (Which
is why I say the ID and Ken Ham YEC side are doing more damage than
Dawkins because they use the same terminology, the Neo-Aristotelians
get to define the rules of the game and the game with words is rigged
if you play by their rules, you can't win the argument because you
can't win an argument against a mentally ill person thinking that
decisions can be natural.) What is a natural decision or a natural
preservation(Darwin meant preservation with selection)? What is a
colorless green idea.....

�Natural Selection acts on genes, not individuals or groups of
individuals.� True or false?
could just as well have been
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
True or false? The question is a false dichotomy, both answers are
wrong because the sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless.
The Neo-Empedoclians are using grammatically correct but meaningless
sentences
formulated in a tautological way to induce one to accept their [[world
view]]. Using grammatically correct by meaningless sentences is just
as mentally damaging as believing a traffic light can be green and red
at the same time. We are dealing with an insidious assault on our
language, that not a single YEC dinosaur adventure land will solve. I
understand now why the Bible was so against making graven images of
things in heaven, because one then focuses on the images instead of
the words, engaging in visualizations instead of trust by faith in the
words of God alone.

aganunitsi

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:40:49 PM2/9/10
to
On Feb 9, 10:21�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Natura non facit saltum, nature makes no sudden leaps. Or "the
> condition of existence makes no sudden leaps". Everything that is in a
> condition of existence plays out in a linear time trajectory, such a
> time can't "jump" into the future speed up or slowdown. I am part of
> nature in the sense that my nature is in a condition of existence in
> the here and now, my existence isn't slowing down or speeding up. In
> the condition of existence sense nature is a synonym for environment.
> Try and measure "nature" on a scale of 1-10 and point out where the
> demarcation is between sudden and slow in the same way one would
> demarcate between a weak and strong magnetic field in Gauss units.
> What would be the units of measurement, "naturals" perhaps?
>
> In other words the term "Natura non facit saltum" is just as
> meaningless ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.

> By saying that the condition of existence makes no sudden leaps it
> invokes an image of increasing or decreasing slopes, such as those
> "fitness landscapes" abstractions. Whatever the graphs are supposed to
> represent, they can't represent a "fitness landscape" or "suitability
> landscape" - there is no such thing that can be measured or calibrated
> on scale of -10 to +120 in the same sense an A/D converter Span and
> Zero would be calibrated to digitally represent a physical
> measurement.. If a "fitness landscape" can be measured how would one
> then calibrate its Zero and Span ?
>
> Note that no matter in what context "Natura non facit saltum" is used
> with whatever intent(Darwin had a specific intent) it remains just as
> invalid ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously

> in any context.
>
> The same logic applies to "NS acts". A selection is a decision,
> decisions aren't "natural" but could be contemplated or hasty,
> decisions don't act on anything because only a being can make a
> decision or act on something. Neither can one "add in selection" as a
> Discovery institute bacterial resistance video narrated by Stephen
> Myer claimed. You can't "add in selection" to the bacteria but could
> make decisions influencing the outcome of bacteria interacting. (Which
> is why I say the ID and Ken Ham YEC side are doing more damage than
> Dawkins because they use the same terminology, the Neo-Aristotelians
> get to define the rules of the game and the game with words is rigged
> if you play by their rules, you can't win the argument because you
> can't win an argument against a mentally ill person thinking that
> decisions can be natural.) What is a natural decision or a natural
> preservation(Darwin meant preservation with selection)? What is a
> colorless green idea.....
>
> �Natural Selection acts on genes, not individuals or groups of
> individuals.� True or false?
> could just as well have beenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
> True or false? �The question is a false dichotomy, both answers are

> wrong because the sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless.
> The Neo-Empedoclians are using grammatically correct but meaningless
> sentences
> formulated in a tautological way to induce one to accept their [[world
> view]]. Using grammatically correct by meaningless sentences is just
> as mentally damaging as believing a traffic light can be green and red
> at the same time. We are dealing with an insidious assault on our
> language, that not a single YEC dinosaur adventure land will solve. I
> understand now why the Bible was so against making graven images of
> things in heaven, because one then focuses on the images instead of
> the words, engaging in visualizations instead of trust by faith in the
> words of God alone.

That's all a colorless green idea, sleeping furiously.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 3:56:24 PM2/9/10
to
backspace wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> In fact SQL is deliberately intended to be independent of its
>> environment, for the environment to have no effect on it and it to
>> have no effect on its environment..
>
> SQL is the coda or semantics that conveys the idea of a master/slave
> database relationship or dictionary key:value pairs in Python.

Abolute nonsense. SQL is a non-procedural language (Structured Query
Langueage) that is used to process and manipulate data stored in relational
tables. It is not peculiar to Python. There is an ANSI standard for it and
it is implemented by software builders with nearly every database engine.

By
> saying SQL, signal sender and signal receiver understand a set of
> algorithms that achieves key:value iteration or database mapping.
> That's the concept , saying that "..SQL is intended to be independent
> of its condition of existence...." is just as meaningless as
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously and
> "...SQL is adapted to its condition of existence..." Your sentence is
> grammatically correct though.
>
> SQL as isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't
> be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because
> your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being
> cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its
> attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)
>

This is mostly metaphysical mumbo jumbo. SQL is and was designed to be
independent of its environment. If you don't understand what that means or
why it should be so come back after you have studied relational theory, SQL
implementation and computer environments. If you can understand these
things you will cease to argue. If you cannot there is no point it wasting
bandwidth over it.

> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_elems011.htm
> "...A cursor variable declared in a PL/SQL host environment and passed
> to PL/SQL as a bind variable. The datatype of the host cursor variable
> is compatible with the return type of any PL/SQL cursor variable. Host
> variables must be prefixed with a colon......"
>

What has this extract from some Oracle manual here for? This is entirely
irelevant. You have no idea what it means even in the context that it was
written and it has even less meaning here taken out of its context. It has
nothing to do with adaptation, living things or physical environments.

> Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate ,
> linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to
> the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?

I cannot explain the inexplicable. The above it totally sense free and can
neither be affirmed nor denied.

I notice that you carefully cut out my conclusion that your analogy between
SQL and living things was non existent and now you have drifted into details
of a topic that clearly do not understand at all. Why is that?

David

RAM

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 5:52:15 PM2/9/10
to

Darwin didn't know about genes. If Darwin were alive today he would
know about and genes.

He would agree that an adequate operational definition of suitable/
fitness is (quoting Burkhard): "the proportion of his genes in all


the genes of the next generation."

All your verbal meanderings, linguistic deconstruction and re-parsing
can't escape the fact that the empirical reality of evolution can be
documented and is a scientific fact.

It is you and your religion that will have to change or it will be
pushed into the dustbin of sectarian Know-Nothings of history.

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 6:17:09 PM2/9/10
to

Says the guy who can't figure out the fact he's different than his
parents.


>
>

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 6:18:26 PM2/9/10
to

the bible said you have to be 'born again' 2000 years ago

what would be the operational definition the suitable and who has
defined what this is

if you h ave questions about evolution because of language

then you're really fucked if you believe in the bible

>

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 6:23:27 PM2/9/10
to
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:21:30 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Natura non facit saltum, nature makes no sudden leaps. Or "the
>condition of existence makes no sudden leaps". Everything that is in a
>condition of existence plays out in a linear time trajectory

really? got proof of this? who defined this? where is this defined?

, such a
>time can't "jump" into the future speed up or slowdown.

not only can time slow down but it can stop

you're a creationist so you're stuck in a 3rd century mentality. but
time can certainly slow down

>
>The same logic applies to "NS acts". A selection is a decision,

meaningless statement. not all selections are decisions.

>decisions aren't "natural" but could be contemplated or hasty,
>decisions don't act on anything because only a being can make a
>decision or act on something. Neither can one "add in selection" as a
>Discovery institute bacterial resistance video narrated by Stephen
>Myer claimed. You can't "add in selection" to the bacteria but could
>make decisions influencing the outcome of bacteria interacting.

the discovery institute has a prostituted view of language, much like
your own, for the same reason

religious fanaticism compromises language.

>
>�Natural Selection acts on genes, not individuals or groups of
>individuals.� True or false?


>could just as well have been
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
>True or false? The question is a false dichotomy, both answers are
>wrong because the sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless.
>The Neo-Empedoclians are using grammatically correct but meaningless
>sentences
>formulated in a tautological way to induce one to accept their [[world
>view]]. Using grammatically correct by meaningless sentences is just
>as mentally damaging as believing a traffic light can be green and red
>at the same time. We are dealing with an insidious assault on our
>language, that not a single YEC dinosaur adventure land will solve. I
>understand now why the Bible was so against making graven images of
>things in heaven, because one then focuses on the images instead of
>the words, engaging in visualizations instead of trust by faith in the
>words of God alone.
>

if only you knew what a tautology is...

pity

and the bible doesn't mention 'graven images'

because we dont know what a 'graven image' is, who defined it or who
was the first person to mention it...

all concepts that you say are necessary to validate an idea.

hoist on your own petard.

>

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 9, 2010, 10:23:37 PM2/9/10
to
In article
<44d03de4-a1c1-4912...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
aganunitsi <ssyk...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I'm going to rename my cat "Colorless green ideas", just so when he's
> in REM sleep, twitching away, I can say "Colorless green ideas sleeps
> furiously".

You should get a second cat, and name it Chomsky, so that you can say
Chomsky watches colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

backspace

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 1:22:55 AM2/10/10
to
On Feb 9, 10:56�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate ,
> > linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to
> > the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?
>
> I cannot explain the inexplicable. �The above it totally sense free and can
> neither be affirmed nor denied.

When we say "Select * from table1" that has a specific understood
meaning in the SQL environment or condition of existence by people
familiar with SQL script. In other words you a signal sender and me as
receiver both have an idea as to how this relates to selecting data
from a table. The term "Select * from table1" reflects a condition of
existence in somebodies mind.

My point is that in any reference frame any concept can be phrased
such that it superficially sounds meaningful but in actual fact is
just as meaningless as "Julio cranks his wooden cheese". Chomsky is
providing extreme cases to make his point, trying to show that at more
mundane subtle level, terms and phrases are being used which makes no
sense.

Thus I ask what possible meanings do you think could the sentences
below have in terms of the goal of database design between two
developers setting up a product list for a client. In what way does it
increase their capacity of SQL proficiency.

"....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , linked or in love
with its condition of existence......"

rephrase:
"....SQL is either adapted or independent of its condition of
existence......"
or
"....SQL is adapted to its condition of existence......"
or
"....SQL is independent of its condition of existence......"
or
"....SQL is adapted to its environment......"

How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in
explaining anything?

backspace

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 2:19:10 AM2/10/10
to
On Feb 9, 10:56 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > SQL as isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't
> > be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because
> > your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being
> > cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its
> > attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)

> This is mostly metaphysical mumbo jumbo. SQL is and was designed to be
> independent of its environment.

In a specific sense yes just like a Python code running in a Windows
environment achieves the same result as a Linux environment. The code
is thus independent of its environmental implementation or more
specific the concept is independent of it implementation in either
Linux or Windows. I understand this, the problem is that I can't
really convey what I am trying to say using just one word
"environment".

What multiple senses and interpretation could one think of the
sentences below:
1) "Select * from table1" is adapted to its environment or
2) "Select * from table1" is independent of its environment.

"....The code is thus independent of its environment...." makes sense
in one context but in another could be meaningless.


David Hare-Scott

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 2:36:54 AM2/10/10
to

These statements are all pretty well meaningless in the context. It would
be reasonable and meaningful (and true) to assert that SQL is independent of
its environment but two developers wouldn't have that conversation about a
product list as they should have absorbed the principle early in their
training and so it would be a given.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the following:

> How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in
> explaining anything?

There is no connection. There is no useful analogy. There is no analogy at
all.

Here is a big hint "environment " means something slightly different in the
two cases. Its meaning is context dependent.

Here is a better hint. SQL is to animal as puss is to moon.

David

Kermit

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 7:59:50 AM2/10/10
to
On Feb 9, 10:22�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:56�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate ,
> > > linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to
> > > the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?
>
> > I cannot explain the inexplicable. �The above it totally sense free and can
> > neither be affirmed nor denied.
>
> When we say �"Select * from table1" that has a specific understood
> meaning in the SQL environment or condition of existence by people
> familiar with SQL script. In other words you a signal sender and me as
> receiver both have an idea as to how this relates to selecting data
> from a table. �The term "Select * from table1" reflects a condition of
> existence in somebodies mind.

Why would people familiar with SQL claim that it is specifically
Python based? My company uses an SQL database written in Progress, and
I write scripts that interact with it in Perl.

No same programmer - or biologist - would try to use SQL for
describing biology.

>
> My point is that in any reference frame any concept can be phrased
> such that it superficially sounds meaningful but in actual fact is
> just as meaningless as "Julio cranks his wooden cheese". Chomsky is
> providing extreme cases to make his point, trying to show that at more
> mundane subtle level, terms and phrases are being used which makes no
> sense.

Your posts, for example.

>
> Thus I ask what possible meanings do you think could the sentences
> below have in terms of the goal of �database design between two
> developers setting up a product list for a client. In what way does it
> increase their capacity of SQL proficiency.
>
> "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , linked or in love
> with its condition of existence......"
> rephrase:
> "....SQL is either adapted or independent �of �its condition of
> existence......"

this sentence is not a rephrase of the previous. As with all of your
"rephrases", it is designed to reduce the information given, and it is
dishonest to claim otherwise.

Moreover, I am insulted that you would think I (or anyone else) would
be fooled by this.

> or
> "....SQL is �adapted to �its condition of existence......"

Ditto.

> or
> "....SQL is �independent of �its condition of existence......"

Ditto.

> or
> "....SQL is �adapted to �its environment......"

Ditto. SQL doesn't "adapt" to its environment.

>
> How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in
> explaining anything?

It explains, for instance, why an arctic hare is white instead of
brown.

Kermit

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 8:25:05 AM2/10/10
to
In article
<2b15ef00-1044-4cd7...@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> No same programmer - or biologist - would try to use SQL for
> describing biology.

Alas, not so:

http://www.geneontology.org/

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 11:31:08 AM2/10/10
to
On Feb 9, 6:21�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Natura non facit saltum, nature makes no sudden leaps. Or "the
> condition of existence makes no sudden leaps". Everything that is in a
> condition of existence plays out in a linear time trajectory, such a
> time can't "jump" into the future speed up or slowdown. I am part of
> nature in the sense that my nature is in a condition of existence in
> the here and now, my existence isn't slowing down or speeding up. In
> the condition of existence sense nature is a synonym for environment.
> Try and measure "nature" on a scale of 1-10 and point out where the
> demarcation is between sudden and slow in the same way one would
> demarcate between a weak and strong magnetic field in Gauss units.
> What would be the units of measurement, "naturals" perhaps?
>
> In other words the term "Natura non facit saltum" is just as
> meaningless ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.

> By saying that the condition of existence makes no sudden leaps it
> invokes an image of increasing or decreasing slopes, such as those
> "fitness landscapes" abstractions. Whatever the graphs are supposed to
> represent, they can't represent a "fitness landscape" or "suitability
> landscape" - there is no such thing that can be measured or calibrated
> on scale of -10 to +120 in the same sense an A/D converter Span and
> Zero would be calibrated to digitally represent a physical
> measurement.. If a "fitness landscape" can be measured how would one
> then calibrate its Zero and Span ?
>
> Note that no matter in what context "Natura non facit saltum" is used
> with whatever intent(Darwin had a specific intent) it remains just as
> invalid ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously

> in any context.
>
> The same logic applies to "NS acts". A selection is a decision,
> decisions aren't "natural" but could be contemplated or hasty,
> decisions don't act on anything because only a being can make a
> decision or act on something. Neither can one "add in selection" as a
> Discovery institute bacterial resistance video narrated by Stephen
> Myer claimed. You can't "add in selection" to the bacteria but could
> make decisions influencing the outcome of bacteria interacting. (Which
> is why I say the ID and Ken Ham YEC side are doing more damage than
> Dawkins because they use the same terminology, the Neo-Aristotelians
> get to define the rules of the game and the game with words is rigged
> if you play by their rules, you can't win the argument because you
> can't win an argument against a mentally ill person thinking that
> decisions can be natural.) What is a natural decision or a natural
> preservation(Darwin meant preservation with selection)? What is a
> colorless green idea.....
>
> �Natural Selection acts on genes, not individuals or groups of
> individuals.� True or false?
> True or false? �The question is a false dichotomy, both answers are

> wrong because the sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless.
> The Neo-Empedoclians are using grammatically correct but meaningless
> sentences
> formulated in a tautological way to induce one to accept their [[world
> view]]. Using grammatically correct by meaningless sentences is just
> as mentally damaging as believing a traffic light can be green and red
> at the same time. We are dealing with an insidious assault on our
> language, that not a single YEC dinosaur adventure land will solve. I
> understand now why the Bible was so against making graven images of
> things in heaven, because one then focuses on the images instead of
> the words, engaging in visualizations instead of trust by faith in the
> words of God alone.


Is "Mr M" here by any chance a relative of yours?:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2084

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 12:08:44 PM2/10/10
to
In article <hktnmt$t5l$1...@news.albasani.net>,
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

They are so close that a slip of the tongue can move you from one to the
other?

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 12:07:17 PM2/10/10
to
In article <100220101323371887%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

Chomp! Chomp!

Mike Lyle

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 12:35:16 PM2/10/10
to
backspace wrote:
[...]

>
> My point is that in any reference frame any concept can be phrased
> such that it superficially sounds meaningful but in actual fact is
> just as meaningless as "Julio cranks his wooden cheese". Chomsky is
> providing extreme cases to make his point, trying to show that at more
> mundane subtle level, terms and phrases are being used which makes no
> sense.
>
> Thus I ask what possible meanings do you think could the sentences
> below have in terms of the goal of database design between two
> developers setting up a product list for a client. In what way does it
> increase their capacity of SQL proficiency.
>
> "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , linked or in love
> with its condition of existence......"
> rephrase:
> "....SQL is either adapted or independent of its condition of
> existence......"
> or
> "....SQL is adapted to its condition of existence......"
> or
> "....SQL is independent of its condition of existence......"
> or
> "....SQL is adapted to its environment......"
>
> How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in
> explaining anything?

But on that understanding, how would you account for the explicit claim
of Quincunx Macarena? Nobody's ever challenged it: "Investigationes
demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas
est etiam processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetudium
lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera gothica, quam nunc putamus parum
claram, anteposuerit litterarum formas humanitatis per seacula quarta
decima et quinta decima. Eodem modo typi, qui nunc nobis videntur parum
clari, fiant sollemnes in futurum."

--
Mike.


backspace

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 1:10:31 PM2/10/10
to
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/DownloadDoc.aspx?doc_id=19966760
Cambridge University press

"....Viewing evolution as change in gene frequency can produce
reasonable results in terms of producing an FF&F(Fit of form and
function (FF&F). For example, consider the case where the fitness
conferred by a gene on an individual is density independent
(independent of the population size) and frequency independent
(independent of gene frequencies). In this case, the gene dynamics
favor the genes that confer the highest per capita rate of growth on
the population. In the situation where the fitness conferred by a gene
is density dependent and frequency independent, then gene dynamics
favors genes that maximize the population�s size. In both of these
cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the fittest if fitness is
defined either as population growth rate or population size. However,
as soon as evolution is frequency dependent, that is the fitness
conferred by a gene on an individual is influenced by the frequencies
of other genes in the population, then the linkage between the
consequence of natural selection operating on genes and some
corresponding measure of fitness at the population level disappears.
The endpoint of the gene dynamics no longer optimizes any obvious
measure of ecological success...."

"....In both of these cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the
fittest if fitness is defined either as population growth rate or
population size...."

Which is meaningless, lets rephrase:

"....In both of these cases the gene as a cybernetic algorithmic
processing abstraction favors survival of the fittest if fitness is
defined either as population growth rate or population size...."

Suitability(what Darwin meant with fitness) isn't defined as growth
rates of anything, it is a context dependent subjective contrast
between two or multiple states that can't be measured on a scale of
suitability. If magnetic flux is measured in Gauss would suitability
then be measured in "naturals"?


Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 2:12:46 PM2/10/10
to
On Feb 9, 3:51�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:50 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact SQL is deliberately intended to be independent of its
> > environment, for the environment to have no effect on it and it to have no
> > effect on its environment..
>
> SQL is the coda or semantics that conveys the idea of a master/slave
> database relationship or dictionary key:value pairs in Python.

A "master/slave database"? The normal description is "relational
database", usually implemented as the server in a client/server setup.
SQL is a query language wich does _not_ describe the ideas behind a
relational database, it merely provides a standard way of
interrogating them.

And the above has _nothing_ to do with associative arrays as
implemented by Python (and a lot of other languages).

> By saying SQL, �signal sender and signal receiver understand a set of
> algorithms that achieves key:value iteration or database mapping.

Well... This "signal receiver" merely grasps you have no idea what
you're actually talking about. SQL does define some concepts, but the
algorithms and "database mapping" are not amongst them, as far as i'm
aware. By saying "SQL" you are merely referring to a set of
definitions on syntax and semantics of the query language, not the
rdbms implementing the database proper.

> That's the concept , saying that "..SQL is intended to be independent
> of its condition of existence...." is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiouslyand
> "...SQL is adapted to its condition of existence..." Your sentence is
> grammatically correct though.

It's not only grammatically correct, it's also conceptually correct.
SQL is only a definition for a language. It says nothing about the
actual software used to implement it or the database it is intended to
interrogate.

> SQL as isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything.

I'm quite sure it's adapted to interrogating databases. I'm also quite
sure it's fully independent and separate of the database proper. In
fact, if you avoid the manufacturers addons, the same SQL query can be
used across many databases (ranging from Postgress via MySQL to
Oracle). That's really the big advantage, it being separate and
independent.

> You can't be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because
> your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being
> cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its
> attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)
>

> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_ele...


> "...A cursor variable declared in a PL/SQL host environment and passed
> to PL/SQL as a bind variable. The datatype of the host cursor variable
> is compatible with the return type of any PL/SQL cursor variable. Host
> variables must be prefixed with a colon......"
>
> Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate ,
> linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to
> the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?

The thing you were quoting isn't an SQL manual, but a PL/SQL manual.
The difference being two letters and a slash. PL/SQL is a language
combining the qualities of imperative languages with those of a query
language like SQL. And NO they are _not_ the same.

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/01_oview.htm#sthref22

For instance: SQL has no notion of cursors, but the client software
usually has. It is intended to eliminate the need to keep (possibly
huge) result tables in memory.

backspace

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 3:13:36 PM2/10/10
to
On Feb 10, 9:12�pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
<snip not getting my point>

From H.Osborn's book "From the Greeks to Darwin" available at
Gutenbergpress.com or org whatever.

=== p.245 ===
"...Remarkable as this parallelism 1 is, it is not com- plete. The
line of argument is the same, but the point d'appui is different.
Darwin dwells upon variations in single characters, as taken hold of
by
Selection ; Wallace mentions variations, but dwells upon full-formed
varieties, as favourably or unfavour- ably adapted. It is perfectly
clear that with Darwin the struggle is so intense that the chance of
survival of each individual turns upon a single and even slight
variation. With Wallace, Varieties are already presupposed by causes
which he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, and
those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive. There is
really a wide gap between these two statements and applications of the
theory. ...."

"....With Wallace, Varieties are already presupposed by causes which
he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, and those
varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive...."

"... a change in the environment occurs, and those varieties which
happen to be adapted to it survive...."

rephrase:
"...... those varieties which are adapted to their condition of
existence survive...."

The sentence is an obvious tautology, the fact that the varieties are
in a condition of existence implies they are alive otherwise they
wouldn't have existed now would they?


aganunitsi

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 3:20:07 PM2/10/10
to
On Feb 9, 10:22�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in
> explaining anything?

In and of itself, not much. But if you can explain *how* an animal is
adapted to it's environment you can describe the future change in
population based on changes in environment. You can also do cool
things like move the plant/animal to a similar environment, and know
ahead of time how it's population will fare. This is basic shit that
any farmer can explain to you - no need to venture into ivory towers.

aganunitsi

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 3:22:38 PM2/10/10
to

Absolutely wrong rephrasing. Should be
".....those varieties which are adapted to their *new* condition of
existence survive..."

You keep ignoring the potential for change.

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 3:28:49 PM2/10/10
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:10:31 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/DownloadDoc.aspx?doc_id=19966760
>Cambridge University press
>
>"....Viewing evolution as change in gene frequency can produce
>reasonable results in terms of producing an FF&F(Fit of form and
>function (FF&F). For example, consider the case where the fitness
>conferred by a gene on an individual is density independent
>(independent of the population size) and frequency independent
>(independent of gene frequencies). In this case, the gene dynamics
>favor the genes that confer the highest per capita rate of growth on

>the population.."


>
>"....In both of these cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the
>fittest if fitness is defined either as population growth rate or
>population size...."
>
>Which is meaningless, lets rephrase:

it's hardly meaningless. you just don't understand it.

it's meaningless if, and only if, genes have no effect on populations

the fact is, they do.

sorry, creationist. i realize you guys cry like frightened children
when adults talk science, but your ideas were dead 2000 years ago.

>
>"....In both of these cases the gene as a cybernetic algorithmic
>processing abstraction favors survival of the fittest if fitness is
>defined either as population growth rate or population size...."

the gene isn't a processing anything. it does not process because it
can not take an input. it IS an input.

you keep demonstrating you don't know squat about processing or
science or chemistry

or even religion


>
>Suitability(what Darwin meant with fitness) isn't defined as growth
>rates of anything, it is a context dependent subjective contrast
>between two or multiple states that can't be measured on a scale of
>suitability. If magnetic flux is measured in Gauss would suitability
>then be measured in "naturals"?

i suggest you start with the wikipedia article on fitness. fitness, at
least to us chemists, is defineable and measureable.

you creationists prefer guys with pointy, starred hats who mutter
vague incantations about gods that don't exist.

that's why creationism is a failure

>

backspace

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 3:27:23 PM2/10/10
to
On Feb 10, 5:23�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article
> <44d03de4-a1c1-4912-8d32-224196e1f...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

>
> aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to rename my cat "Colorless green ideas", just so when he's
> > in REM sleep, twitching away, I can say "Colorless green ideas sleeps
> > furiously".
>
> You should get a second cat, and name it Chomsky, so that you can say
> Chomsky watches colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

One can probably assume that Wilkins isn't a Chomskyite

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 4:10:58 PM2/10/10
to

politically or linguistically?

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 4:54:18 PM2/10/10
to
On Feb 10, 9:13�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 9:12�pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> <snip not getting my point>

I pointed out several fairly big mistakes in what you so humorously
describe as "my point".

That's the point.

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 5:42:33 PM2/10/10
to
In article <l686n5dmla7r3nnoi...@4ax.com>, bpuharic
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:

I generate my sentences the old fashioned way, thank you very much.

Kermit

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 5:53:07 PM2/10/10
to
On Feb 10, 10:10�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/DownloadDoc.aspx?doc_id=19966760
> Cambridge University press
>
> "....Viewing evolution as change in gene frequency can produce
> reasonable results in terms of producing an FF&F(Fit of form and
> function (FF&F). For example, consider the case where the fitness
> conferred by a gene on an individual is density independent
> (independent of the population size) and frequency independent
> (independent �of gene frequencies). �In this case, the gene dynamics

> favor the genes that confer the highest per capita rate of growth on
> the population. In the situation where the fitness conferred by a gene
> is density dependent and frequency independent, then gene dynamics
> favors genes that maximize the population�s size. In both of these
> cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the fittest if fitness is
> defined either as population growth rate or population size. However,
> as soon as evolution is frequency dependent, that is the fitness
> conferred by a gene on an individual is influenced by the frequencies
> of other genes in the population, then the linkage between the
> consequence of natural selection operating on genes and some
> corresponding measure of fitness at the population level disappears.
> The endpoint of the gene dynamics no longer optimizes any obvious
> measure of ecological success...."
>
> "....In both of these cases the gene dynamics favors survival of the
> fittest if �fitness is defined either as population growth rate or

> population size...."
>
> Which is meaningless,

It's perfectly meaningful. Genes (specifically their alleles)
partially determine the reproductive success of the organism. There's
nothing conceptually difficult about this.

Perhaps you find it frightening, or otherwise unpleasant? I'm willing
to listen to your explanation for your inability to read for
comprehension, but it's been my experience that Creationists are not
introspective by nature.

> lets rephrase:

No, you're not rephrasing. You are misrepresenting, because you can
only deal with strawmen, and never acknowledge the evidence.

>
> "....In both of these cases the gene as a cybernetic algorithmic
> processing abstraction

Genes are not abstractions; they are molecules which interact with the
developmental environment to express themselves as body chemistry,
morphology, or behavior.

>�favors survival of the fittest if �fitness is


> defined either as population growth rate or population size...."
>
> Suitability(what Darwin meant with fitness) isn't defined as growth
> rates of anything,

Darwin described very well differential reproductive success, if in
different words. In any event, what does Darwin have to do with modern
biology? You cannot even seem to understand (although I suspect it is
an affectation) that science learns. One hundred fifty years after
Darwin, it is irrelevant what he said or thought or what words and
phrases he coined. What matters is what scientists understand now,
based on the evidence available to us.

> it is a context dependent subjective contrast
> between two or multiple states that can't be measured on a scale of
> suitability.

Gibberish. You can count the offspring an organism has - that's the
scale that counts.

> �If magnetic flux is measured in Gauss would suitability


> then be measured in "naturals"?

No. You are the only one who uses that word as a noun or verb. Do you
really think your inability to understand what you read makes you
smarter than others, or more insightful? Do you think your confusion
with language is some profound problem for evolutionary science? It's
not.

You can't even state your own position; all you do is misstate others.
To challenge evolutionary science, you must establish that most or all
of the evidence is wrong (and it comes from many scientific
disciplines), or offer a better, testable theory that fits the data.

Well, I'll be back next week to repeat these observations.

Kermit


Burkhard

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 5:58:20 PM2/10/10
to
On 10 Feb, 22:42, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article <l686n5dmla7r3nnoiabl4f3skehf8tr...@4ax.com>, bpuharic

Does the experience transform you? Or does the government bind you too
much for that?

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 6:05:00 PM2/10/10
to
On Feb 10, 5:42�pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article <l686n5dmla7r3nnoiabl4f3skehf8tr...@4ax.com>, bpuharic

I myself use words.

Mitchell

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 6:05:21 PM2/10/10
to

Why?

Mitchell Coffey

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 6:43:07 PM2/10/10
to

A rapid change of tack with excision of all previous material suggests to me
that the author suddenly realised that they were out of their depth and the
drubbing would only get more obvious if they didn't do something radical.

David

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 6:58:18 PM2/10/10
to
Walter Bushell wrote:
>>
>> Here is a better hint. SQL is to animal as puss is to moon.
>>
>> David
>
> They are so close that a slip of the tongue can move you from one to
> the other?

Finest kind pareidolia. :-) Especialy if you were raised on 'seek well'
instead of 'ess-que-ell'.

You do it casually to be amusing, backspace mistakes it for cogitation and
is sure it is most serious.

David

john wilkins

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 7:05:38 PM2/10/10
to
Actually, yes - why?

john wilkins

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 7:05:40 PM2/10/10
to
I can't say: it's an NP hard question.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Feb 11, 2010, 12:14:24 AM2/11/10
to
On Feb 10, 7:05�pm, john wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

See, way I figure, this is one of your ternary things. You can be a
Chomskyite, an Antichomskyite, or a Why-Do-I-Have-To-Take-Sides-ite.
Actually, since it is inevitable that backspace seriously
misapprehends the relevant points of Ol' Norm'[s theories, I see at
least a six-way going on here.

Mitchell

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 11, 2010, 4:13:08 AM2/11/10
to
On 11 Feb, 00:05, john wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

You can't just make a context free statement like that . You really
need to set the x-bar higher, review your own principles and
parameters and return to normal form.

backspace

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 12:17:22 AM2/12/10
to
On Feb 10, 9:36�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in
> > explaining anything?
>
> There is no connection. �There is no useful analogy. �There is no analogy at
> all.

You didn't asnwer the qeustion, let me reformulate it differently: How
does saying a chicken is adapted to its environment explain how the
IPC(inverted pendulum control ) algorithm get transmitted from egg to
chicken. The algorithm is like the number 4 is neither here nor
there, where exactly does this control algorithm reside for the
chicken. The neo-Empedoclians refuse to answer the question because it
would say way stupid to say that there was a Malthusian battle between
two algorithms , the strong outwitted the bad you see!

Thus the question is ignored no matter how many times I ask it , my
core concerns aren't addressed.

John Harshman

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 12:41:04 AM2/12/10
to
Perhaps if you tried asking it in English rather than Gibberish?

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 1:15:36 AM2/12/10
to

I would gladly address the matter if I could work out what it was. The
above has no meaning that I can see.

In what way do chickens have or use the IPC? Where is your evidence that
they do? What has it to do with the number 4? What is a neo-empedoclian?
What is the question they refuse to answer? What is a malthusian battle?
What are the two algorithms?

And what does this have to do with

> The conditions of life an organism experiences is not a geographical
> location but is defined in terms of its attributes. A description of
> such an environment is rendered in terms of the attributes of the
> creature in the same way that the SQL computer code environment is
> described in terms of its attributes.

Which is where you started. Why have changed the subject?

Unless you would like to start typing meaningful sentences and focussing
your attention I cannot communicate with you.

Your prose has a strong resemblance to that of diagnosed schizophrenics of
my acquaintance. Is that your problem? I am not just throwing an insult at
you I am looking for an explanation.

David

backspace

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 2:29:47 AM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 7:41�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > IPC(inverted pendulum control ) algorithm get transmitted from egg to
> > chicken. The algorithm is like the �number 4 is neither here nor
> > there, �where exactly does this control algorithm reside for the
> > chicken. The neo-Empedoclians refuse to answer the question because it
> > would say way stupid to say that there was a Malthusian battle between
> > two algorithms , the strong outwitted the bad you see!

> > Thus the question is ignored no matter how many times I ask it , my
> > core concerns aren't addressed.

> Perhaps if you tried asking it in English rather than Gibberish?

Perphaps Dr.Harshman if your thinking wasn't tautological as pointed
out here
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Tautologies_from_Aristotle.2C_Empedocles.2C_James_Hutton_and_Henry_F._Osborn

JH wrote: .....But the ones that successfully reproduced best are
those with the advantageous traits.......And that's natural
selection. ..." from [[AcloselookAtNaturalSelection]] and "....the
stronger has a better chance of passing their genes on....". Stronger
and "better chance" alludes to the same fact....."

backspace

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 2:40:31 AM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 8:15�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Your prose has a strong resemblance to that of diagnosed schizophrenics of
> my acquaintance. �Is that your problem?
It is possible because I am writing these posts as I am talking in
tongues at the same time by the what I perceive to be the power of
the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus. I could be crazy but 100% don't
believe that I am . In a PHD dissertation at Wits university they
found that tongue speakers in fact don't suffer from psycophatological
disorders. 99% of tongue speakers though aren't speaking a language
but engaging in alliteration via learned repetitive behavior.

Let me try and repost the IPC issue again:


How does saying a chicken is adapted to its environment explain how
the IPC(inverted pendulum control ) algorithm get transmitted from

egg to chicken. The algorithm is like the number 4: neither here
nor
there its existence is only in some conscious entities head..
Where exactly does this control algorithm reside for the chicken -
in which Mind does it reside? If the algorithm resides in the blob of
chemical in the egg, what does the transition matrix looks like that
maps this algorithm into a clucking Chicken. This is was somewhat
addressed in Botanical gazette 1909.

The neo-Empedoclians refuse to answer the question because it would

sound way stupid to say that there was a Malthusian battle between two
algorithms , the strong outwitted the bad you see! The strong
algorithm become the IPC one , while the weak algorithm was discarded
as per Malthus as interpreted by Darwin:

Darwin wrote:
".....[[MalThus]] 1838 - "...favourable variations would
be ...preserved, and unfavourable ones ... destroyed. The result of
this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last
got a theory by which to work" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:
120)............"


bpuharic

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 4:24:58 AM2/12/10
to

tis a pity. the creationist thinks science is a tautology

and 'god' has meaning.

no wonder creationism is useless

bpuharic

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 4:26:54 AM2/12/10
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:40:31 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 12, 8:15�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Your prose has a strong resemblance to that of diagnosed schizophrenics of
>> my acquaintance. �Is that your problem?
>It is possible because I am writing these posts as I am talking in
>tongues at the same time by the what I perceive to be the power of
>the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus.

ROFLMAO!! he complains about science being nothing but tautologies,
but babbles about tongues and jesus as if these have some true,
tangible meaning.

god...you GOTTA love creationists with their unconscious sense of
irony


I could be crazy but 100% don't
>believe that I am . In a PHD dissertation at Wits university they
>found that tongue speakers in fact don't suffer from psycophatological
>disorders. 99% of tongue speakers though aren't speaking a language
>but engaging in alliteration via learned repetitive behavior.

a PhD dissertation? that's the basis for your claims that 300 years of
science is wrong?

creationism is SSSOOOOO useless

>

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 4:41:03 AM2/12/10
to
On 12 Feb, 07:40, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:15�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:> Your prose has a strong resemblance to that of diagnosed schizophrenics of
> > my acquaintance. �Is that your problem?
>
> It is possible because I am writing these posts as I am talking in
> tongues at the same time by the what I perceive to �be the power of
> the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus. I could be crazy but 100% don't
> believe that I am . In a PHD dissertation at Wits university they
> found that tongue speakers in fact don't suffer from psycophatological
> disorders. 99% of tongue speakers though aren't speaking a language
> but engaging in alliteration via learned repetitive behavior.
>

small problem here: according to your own words, they only found that
people who engage in alliteration via learned repetitive behaviour
don't suffer from psychological disorders. No reason why this should
be applicable to other cases...


> Let me try and repost the IPC issue again:
> How �does saying a chicken is adapted to its environment explain how
> the �IPC(inverted pendulum control ) algorithm get transmitted from
> egg to �chicken. The algorithm is like the �number 4: �neither here
> nor
> �there its existence is only in some conscious entities head..
> Where exactly does this control algorithm reside for the �chicken �-
> in which Mind does it reside? If the algorithm resides in the blob of
> chemical in the egg, what does the transition matrix looks like that
> maps this algorithm into a clucking Chicken. This is was somewhat
> addressed in Botanical gazette 1909.
>

No, still not a meaningful question.

backspace

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 5:03:43 AM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 11:41�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Let me try and repost the IPC issue again:
> > How �does saying a chicken is adapted to its environment explain how
> > the �IPC(inverted pendulum control ) algorithm get transmitted from
> > egg to �chicken. The algorithm is like the �number 4: �neither here
> > nor
> > �there its existence is only in some conscious entities head..
> > Where exactly does this control algorithm reside for the �chicken �-
> > in which Mind does it reside? If the algorithm resides in the blob of
> > chemical in the egg, what does the transition matrix looks like that
> > maps this algorithm into a clucking Chicken. This is was somewhat
> > addressed in Botanical gazette 1909.

> No, still not a meaningful question.

What is the cause effect relationships that maps an egg into a human
in terms of: A human is adapted to its environment - what does this
explain?

Klaus Hellnick

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 7:04:25 AM2/12/10
to

Apparently, your question is about the development of an organism from
conception to adulthood, rather than evolution. To get the kind of
detail you seem to want, you must read college level biology books,
rather than web searches or high school introductory science books.

Klaus Hellnick

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 7:00:01 AM2/12/10
to
backspace wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:15 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Your prose has a strong resemblance to that of diagnosed schizophrenics of
>> my acquaintance. Is that your problem?
> It is possible because I am writing these posts as I am talking in
> tongues at the same time by the what I perceive to be the power of
> the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus. I could be crazy but 100% don't
> believe that I am . In a PHD dissertation at Wits university they
> found that tongue speakers in fact don't suffer from psycophatological
> disorders. 99% of tongue speakers though aren't speaking a language
> but engaging in alliteration via learned repetitive behavior.
>

If you actually would read the Bible, you would know that "speaking in
tongues" was a magical ability for disciples to clearly communicate to
people in languages they had not learned, not speaking gibberish in
their native language. You are doing the opposite. Actually, you do the
opposite of most of your Biblical commandments and examples. Why is that?
Klaus

John Harshman

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 9:50:04 AM2/12/10
to

You have a fine hand with the ellipsis.

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 10:43:53 AM2/12/10
to

Nothing. Good thing than that it is not a statement of science. I'm
still lost what exactly it is you are looking for.

The way in which a fertilised egg grows into a human is not an issue
of evolutionary biology, but any standard biology textbook gives you
the picture. The cause and effect essentially are biochemical
reactions at the cell level.

Once you have populations of humans, you can have several cause-effect
relations between environment and the individuals that make up that
population. You might e.g. observe that some of them have more hair
than others. The reason for this, in cause and effect terms, are the
biochemical reactions on cell level that form proteins. You might
then observe that the ones with more hair are less likely to die from
hypothermia. The cause and effect here is a lowering of body
temperature that results in death in the bald ones, while body heat is
trapped in the hairy ones. Since dead people don't mate, you get more
hairy ones that are having offspring then bald ones. For the cause and
effect of mating and offspring, ask your father to give you "the
talk". That explains that over time, you will get more and more hairy
ones, at least if the environment stays cold.

backspace

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 3:21:31 PM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 5:43�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Nothing. Good thing than that it is not a statement of science. I'm
> still lost what exactly it is you are looking �for.

> �The way in which a fertilised egg grows into a human is not an issue
> of evolutionary biology, but any standard biology textbook gives you
> the picture.

Mathematical biology dealing with Chaos theory from Rene Thom and
others actually view the way embrios expand into chickens as happening
in some abstract topological partial differential equation space.
Highly complex math first describes what happens in some abstract
domain before the physical implementation takes place physically.
There are specific reasons as to why embrios look differently at
different stages of development due to where the heart, liver must be
placed. In each case there is a complex mathematical algorithm that
"guides" these steps. Rene Thom said that developmental biologists are
trying to solve a problem they can't define.


> The cause and effect essentially are biochemical reactions at the cell level.

A Japanese walking robot is implementing IPC using wires , actuators
hydraulic fluid etc. A human implements IPC (subconsicously) using
carbon(sort of this isn't some dogmatics statement, try and get the
drift of my argument). The physical medium isn't the issue but the
abstract idea that is behind the physical implementation, whether
carbon or copper.

>You might e.g. observe that some of them have more hair
> than others. The reason for this, in cause and effect terms, are the
> biochemical reactions on cell level that form proteins.

And you have electrical reactions in the Japanese walking robot, but
the reactions isn't the algorithm, the algorithm is separate from
either carbon, copper or hydrolics. Information is information it
isn't matter nor energy. We are dealing with an information theoretic
construct first and then only follows the physical. All things
physical , all rocks , all atoms first existed in a powerful Mind
before it existed in reality.


David Hare-Scott

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 3:38:54 PM2/12/10
to

This explanation is no better than the first. Your thinking is very
disordered and confused. Whether this is due to passion and lack of
discipline or illness I cannot say for sure but I would put the chance of
you being crazy at much higher than zero. Come back if and when you can get
some kind of continuity and focus into your writing, it is incomprehensible
now.

David

aganunitsi

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 4:21:42 PM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 12:21锟絧m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 5:43锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nothing. Good thing than that it is not a statement of science. I'm
> > still lost what exactly it is you are looking 锟絝or.
> > 锟絋he way in which a fertilised egg grows into a human is not an issue

> > of evolutionary biology, but any standard biology textbook gives you
> > the picture.
>
> Mathematical biology dealing with Chaos theory from Rene Thom and
> others actually view the way embrios expand into chickens as happening
> in some abstract topological partial differential equation space.
> Highly complex math first describes what happens in some abstract
> domain before the physical implementation takes place physically.
> There are specific reasons as to why embrios look differently at
> different stages of development due to where the heart, liver must be
> placed. In each case there is a complex mathematical algorithm that
> "guides" these steps. Rene Thom said that developmental biologists are
> trying to solve a problem they can't define.
>
> > The cause and effect essentially are biochemical 锟絩eactions at the cell level.

>
> A Japanese walking robot is implementing IPC using wires , actuators
> hydraulic fluid etc. A human implements IPC (subconsicously) using
> carbon(sort of this isn't some dogmatics statement, try and get the
> drift of my argument). The physical medium isn't the issue but the
> abstract idea that is behind the physical implementation, whether
> carbon or copper.
>
> >You might e.g. observe that some of them have more hair
> > than others. The reason for this, in cause and effect terms, are the
> > biochemical reactions on cell level that form proteins.
>
> And you have electrical reactions in the Japanese walking robot, but
> the reactions isn't the algorithm, the algorithm is separate from
> either carbon, copper or hydrolics. Information is information it
> isn't matter nor energy. We are dealing with an information theoretic
> construct first and then only follows the physical. All things
> physical , all rocks , all atoms first existed in a powerful Mind
> before it existed in reality.

Holy crap I think I'm starting to understand what you're getting at -
I must be a little crazy!

Yes, you can theoretically define a mathematical function f(x,y,z,...)
that takes all input of environmental variables x, y, z, ...
(thousands?) and outputs some number that equates to the relative
fitness of that organism in that particular environment. No wonder you
were trying to define fitness in terms of some unit, such as
"naturals".

So if this theoretical function exists in the egg, what is the matrix
that transfers it to the chicken? Obviously the function must change
in the transition from egg to chicken. An input of variables x,y,z
that define environment A would rarely give the same fitness for an
egg as a chicken, because an egg and a chicken have to do different
things to be declared fit. An egg, for example, is much more dependent
on a specific temperature range than an adult chicken (and the adult
chicken serves to provide the proper temperature range to the egg,
thus the chicken is part of the egg's environmental input variables).

It's an interesting concept, but it seems way overcomplicated. There
are simpler ways to measure and predict population dynamics without
trying to create a theoretical fitness quantum.

Kermit

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 4:39:00 PM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 12:21锟絧m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 5:43锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nothing. Good thing than that it is not a statement of science. I'm
> > still lost what exactly it is you are looking 锟絝or.
> > 锟絋he way in which a fertilised egg grows into a human is not an issue

> > of evolutionary biology, but any standard biology textbook gives you
> > the picture.
>
> Mathematical biology dealing with Chaos theory from Rene Thom and
> others actually view the way embrios expand into chickens as happening
> in some abstract topological partial differential equation space.
> Highly complex math first describes what happens in some abstract
> domain before the physical implementation takes place physically.
> There are specific reasons as to why embrios look differently at
> different stages of development due to where the heart, liver must be
> placed. In each case there is a complex mathematical algorithm that
> "guides" these steps. Rene Thom said that developmental biologists are
> trying to solve a problem they can't define.
>
> > The cause and effect essentially are biochemical 锟絩eactions at the cell level.

>
> A Japanese walking robot is implementing IPC using wires , actuators
> hydraulic fluid etc. A human implements IPC (subconsicously) using
> carbon(sort of this isn't some dogmatics statement, try and get the
> drift of my argument). The physical medium isn't the issue but the
> abstract idea that is behind the physical implementation, whether
> carbon or copper.
>
> >You might e.g. observe that some of them have more hair
> > than others. The reason for this, in cause and effect terms, are the
> > biochemical reactions on cell level that form proteins.
>
> And you have electrical reactions in the Japanese walking robot, but
> the reactions isn't the algorithm, the algorithm is separate from
> either carbon, copper or hydrolics. Information is information it
> isn't matter nor energy.

Correct. It is a tool for understanding or manipulating the world
around us.

> We are dealing with an information theoretic
> construct first and then only follows the physical.

Or physical things follow natural processes which can be described
mathematically. In what way could it be "first"?

> All things
> physical , all rocks , all atoms first existed in a powerful Mind
> before it existed in reality.

Evidence?

Kermit

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 4:55:06 PM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 9:21锟絧m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 5:43锟絧m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nothing. Good thing than that it is not a statement of science. I'm
> > still lost what exactly it is you are looking 锟絝or.
> > 锟絋he way in which a fertilised egg grows into a human is not an issue

> > of evolutionary biology, but any standard biology textbook gives you
> > the picture.
>
> Mathematical biology dealing with Chaos theory from Rene Thom and
> others actually view the way embrios expand into chickens as happening
> in some abstract topological partial differential equation space.

A description of me riding a bike can also take the shape of a set of
highly abstract differential equatiuons, but that has nothing to do
with the way i actually ride my bike, which involves no differential
equations at all.

> Highly complex math first describes what happens in some abstract
> domain before the physical implementation takes place physically.

Yet i can ride my bike without first doing the math. So can most six-
year olds.

> There are specific reasons as to why embrios look differently at
> different stages of development due to where the heart, liver must be
> placed. In each case there is a complex mathematical algorithm that
> "guides" these steps.

So show me these "complex mathematical algorithms" and explain to me
how a six year old can ride a bike without solving highly complex
differential equations.

The fact that phenomenon X can be described in mathematical terms does
not imply that phenomenon X actually involves any math at all.

> Rene Thom said that developmental biologists are
> trying to solve a problem they can't define.
>

> > The cause and effect essentially are biochemical 锟絩eactions at the cell level.


>
> A Japanese walking robot is implementing IPC using wires , actuators
> hydraulic fluid etc. A human implements IPC (subconsicously) using
> carbon(sort of this isn't some dogmatics statement, try and get the
> drift of my argument). The physical medium isn't the issue but the
> abstract idea that is behind the physical implementation, whether
> carbon or copper.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get the drift... Since robots and humans both
have lots of wiring and a robot is designed, then therefore a human
must be designed, too.

It's still a non sequitur.

backspace

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 4:57:56 PM2/12/10
to
On Feb 12, 11:39�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > All things
> > physical , all rocks , all atoms first existed in a powerful Mind
> > before it existed in reality.
>
> Evidence?

Faith the evidence of things not seen.

Free Lunch

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 6:04:46 PM2/12/10
to
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:57:56 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Only for a dishonest definition of 'evidence'.

johnetho...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 12, 2010, 6:14:04 PM2/12/10
to

In other words you have no evidence. Thanks for making that clear.

backspace

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 3:37:59 PM3/16/10
to
On Feb 10, 9:36 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 10:56 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate
> >>> , linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates
> >>> to the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?
>
> >> I cannot explain the inexplicable. The above it totally sense free
> >> and can neither be affirmed nor denied.
>
> > When we say  "Select * from table1" that has a specific understood
> > meaning in the SQL environment or condition of existence by people
> > familiar with SQL script. In other words you a signal sender and me as
> > receiver both have an idea as to how this relates to selecting data
> > from a table.  The term "Select * from table1" reflects a condition of
> > existence in somebodies mind.
>
> > My point is that in any reference frame any concept can be phrased
> > such that it superficially sounds meaningful but in actual fact is
> > just as meaningless as "Julio cranks his wooden cheese". Chomsky is
> > providing extreme cases to make his point, trying to show that at more
> > mundane subtle level, terms and phrases are being used which makes no
> > sense.
>
> > Thus I ask what possible meanings do you think could the sentences
> > below have in terms of the goal of  database design between two
> > developers setting up a product list for a client. In what way does it
> > increase their capacity of SQL proficiency.
>
> > "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , linked or in love
> > with its condition of existence......"
> > rephrase:
> > "....SQL is either adapted or independent  of  its condition of
> > existence......"
> > or
> > "....SQL is  adapted to  its condition of existence......"
> > or
> > "....SQL is  independent of  its condition of existence......"
> > or
> > "....SQL is  adapted to  its environment......"
>
> These statements are all pretty well meaningless in the context.  It would
> be reasonable and meaningful (and true) to assert that SQL is independent of
> its environment but two developers wouldn't have that conversation about a
> product list as they should have absorbed the principle early in their
> training and so it would be a given.
>
> All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the following:

>
> > How does saying an animal is adapted to its environment help in
> > explaining anything?
>
> There is no connection.  There is no useful analogy.  There is no analogy at
> all.
>
> Here is a big hint "environment " means something slightly different in the
> two cases.  Its meaning is context dependent.

Environment doesn't mean anything, it doesn't even have a meaning in
any context whether dependent or not. Our problem is that the symbols
"fitness", "selection", "environment" etc. do not allow us to
exhaustivly express the hundreds of different ideas many people have.
I have given the two senses we usually express with environment though
such as "condition of existence" and "geographical location". There
could be others.

We are only dealing with ideas. Whole sentences are being lifted from
1874 , concepts symbolically represented by John Tyndall with his idea
of "adapted to environment", which get inserted into the ideas we have
today.

bpuharic

unread,
Mar 16, 2010, 3:53:57 PM3/16/10
to
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
>Environment doesn't mean anything,

really? ever been in a blizzard?

only a creationist would say something this incredibly stupid

it doesn't even have a meaning in
>any context whether dependent or not. Our problem is that the symbols
>"fitness", "selection", "environment" etc. do not allow us to
>exhaustivly express the hundreds of different ideas many people have.

these are not 'symbols'. they are words.

creationists spin their own arguments into a meaningless jumble in the
hopes that this will prove the words of the bible are literally true

what incredible, mind numbing stupdity

backspace

unread,
Mar 17, 2010, 5:49:31 AM3/17/10
to
On Mar 16, 9:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Environment doesn't mean anything,
>
> really? ever been in a blizzard?
>
> only a creationist would say something this incredibly stupid
>
>  it doesn't even have a meaning  in
>
> >any context whether dependent or not. Our problem is that the symbols
> >"fitness", "selection", "environment" etc. do not allow us to
> >exhaustivly express the hundreds of different ideas many people have.
>
> these are not 'symbols'. they are words.

Which depends what you mean with "words" , since "words" itself has no
meaning, only ideas have meaning. The utterances coming out of a
person's mouth means nothing, they can only , using sound waves
represent an idea - this is a point of logic.

Lets take a red robot at an intersection. Who says that red means
stop? Well, turn down the window and ask the driver in the next car
and he will tell you that he and millions of others use red to
symbolically represent stop for their own physical safety. Ok, so we
accept that, he says so.

Lets go over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

"..Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a
central idea in evolutionary theory...."
What theory? Do you mean this theory -
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Darwin.27s_.27Theory_of_Evolution.27_-_what_theory.3F
- the concept Darwin represented using the symbols ToE. Show me
where Darwin discussed population genetics, I can't find it in the
ideas he encoded for with his symbol "evolutionary theory".

".... It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation...."

Here the language fun starts: Who described what. What do we mean with
describe, the symbol usually encompasses and act of volition or a
conscious being describing something such as Newton with his inverse
square law. Somebody had to do the describing. Who wrote that
sentence withing what framework.


".... If differences in individual genotypes affect fitness...."
This begs the question, we still don't know what idea by whom within
what time era, with what knowledge affect a concept that is
symbolically represented with the symbol "fitness", because fitness
like natural selection has no meaning. We first need to know what the
concept is before we can say whether such a concept is affected.

"...., then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over
generations; the genotypes with higher fitness become more common.
This process is called natural selection...."

Firstly Darwin didn't know about genes. How was his concept, Spencer
and John Tyndall, Osborn, Charles Kingsley, John Burroughs , their
concepts that they symbolically represented with the word "fitness"
related to genes and what do we mean with genes. Genes the molecules
or genes a cybernetic abstraction.

secondly the sentence is a rhetorical tautology "..... those with
higher fitness become more common...." says the same thing twice with
"more common" and "fitness" referring to one another.


Burkhard

unread,
Mar 17, 2010, 6:24:34 AM3/17/10
to
On 17 Mar, 09:49, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Environment doesn't mean anything,
>
> > really? ever been in a blizzard?
>
> > only a creationist would say something this incredibly stupid
>
> >  it doesn't even have a meaning  in
>
> > >any context whether dependent or not. Our problem is that the symbols
> > >"fitness", "selection", "environment" etc. do not allow us to
> > >exhaustivly express the hundreds of different ideas many people have.
>
> > these are not 'symbols'. they are words.
>
> Which depends what you mean with "words" , since "words" itself has no
> meaning, only ideas have meaning. The utterances coming out of a
> person's mouth means nothing, they can only , using sound waves
> represent an idea - this is a point of logic.

No, this is a point of a badly garbled theory of semantics. At best,
you could say that ideas are what gives words their meaning, a not
unpopular two level model (but by far not the only theory of word
meaning, nor in my view the best) . But that still would not mean that
ides have meaning, they are meaning.

> Lets take a red robot at an intersection. Who says that red means
> stop? Well, turn down the window and ask the driver in the next car
> and he will tell you that he and millions of others use red to
> symbolically represent stop for their own physical safety. Ok, so we
> accept that, he says so.
>

> Lets go over tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)


>
> "..Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a
> central idea in evolutionary theory...."

> What theory? Do you mean this theory -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Darwin.27s_.27Theory_of_Ev...

bpuharic

unread,
Mar 17, 2010, 6:42:47 AM3/17/10
to
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:49:31 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 16, 9:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Environment doesn't mean anything,
>>
>> really? ever been in a blizzard?
>>
>> only a creationist would say something this incredibly stupid
>>
>>  it doesn't even have a meaning  in
>>
>> >any context whether dependent or not. Our problem is that the symbols
>> >"fitness", "selection", "environment" etc. do not allow us to
>> >exhaustivly express the hundreds of different ideas many people have.
>>
>> these are not 'symbols'. they are words.
>
>Which depends what you mean with "words" , since "words" itself has no
>meaning, only ideas have meaning. The utterances coming out of a
>person's mouth means nothing, they can only , using sound waves
>represent an idea - this is a point of logic.

actually this is incorrect. words have meanings. this is typical of
the post modernist crap that creationists think passes for logic and
wsdom. it's one reason creationism has failed as an explanation for
events in the natural world

>
>Lets take a red robot at an intersection. Who says that red means
>stop? Well, turn down the window and ask the driver in the next car
>and he will tell you that he and millions of others use red to
>symbolically represent stop for their own physical safety. Ok, so we
>accept that, he says so.

what does 'red' mean?

your argument collapses under its own obesity.


>
> secondly the sentence is a rhetorical tautology "..... those with
>higher fitness become more common...." says the same thing twice with
>"more common" and "fitness" referring to one another.

if 'fitness' was a tautology, it wouldn't be testable in a lab; there
would be no purpose.

but fitness IS defineable AND is testable

creationism? incoherent babbling....just like we see from 'backspace'

>

backspace

unread,
Mar 17, 2010, 7:08:00 AM3/17/10
to
On Mar 17, 12:42 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> if 'fitness' was a tautology, it wouldn't be testable in a lab; there
> would be no purpose.

> but fitness IS defineable AND is testable

Who has defined what the modern concept is that "fitness" symbolically
represents?
In the case of a red traffic light , we have all defined that it
represents stop for our own health. Now for the sake of our mental
health who is this person that has defined what is meant with fitness
or did we all decide to define some concept with it and I am
seemingly the only person on this planet who can't figure out what
this is.

"Fitness" can only represent a meaning, did everybody define what this
meaning is or only a few individuals ? So again I ask who says "...It


describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to
reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual's

genes in all the genes of the next generation....."

We don't know who says so, thus there is no motive behind these
cluster of symbols. Is the concept some sort of universal accepted
self-evident truth like like "red" traffic lights is by arbitrary
decree "stop"? If so then we aren't dealing with a scientific theory
because scientific theories aren't universal truths but falsifiable
conjectures.

Burkhard

unread,
Mar 17, 2010, 11:10:00 AM3/17/10
to
backspace wrote:
> On Mar 17, 12:42 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> if 'fitness' was a tautology, it wouldn't be testable in a lab; there
>> would be no purpose.
>
>> but fitness IS defineable AND is testable
>
> Who has defined what the modern concept is that "fitness" symbolically
> represents?
> In the case of a red traffic light , we have all defined that it
> represents stop for our own health.

Really? We all defined it? Nobody asked me. Is it not more accurate to
say that a relevant group of nameless authorities defied it this way,
and then communicated the meaning through relevant publications 9the
Highway Code) so that if you want to find out what it means, you read
the literature - and the latest, most updated version.


Now for the sake of our mental
> health who is this person that has defined what is meant with fitness
> or did we all decide to define some concept with it and I am
> seemingly the only person on this planet who can't figure out what
> this is.

Yep, that's broadly speaking correct. Would make me think if I were you

>
> "Fitness" can only represent a meaning, did everybody define what this
> meaning is or only a few individuals ?

A community of scientists who communicate their shred meaning through
publications to a wider audience - you can find out what it means i you
read the relevant literature.

backspace

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 2:56:54 AM3/18/10
to
On Mar 17, 5:10 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > "Fitness" can only represent a meaning, did everybody define what this
> > meaning is or only a few individuals ?

> A community of scientists who communicate their shred meaning through
> publications to a wider audience - you can find out what it means i you
> read the relevant literature.

And if we read the relevant literature they say the same you say:
Somebody somewhere had some idea , such as gene distribution in
subsequent generations. Spencer knew nothing of genes, why is his word
"fitness" being used if the concept he had was different. Because we
have children reading about "Fitness" and then reading Spencer how
"..... blacks respond to their white masters like tail wagging cocker
spaniels..." The idea Spencer had with fitness was "suitable" as in
whites more suitable than blacks.

Then you track down this author and tells the same story. We thus
have some sort of real-time urban legend going round in circles.

Burkhard

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 4:46:13 AM3/18/10
to
On 18 Mar, 06:56, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:10 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Fitness" can only represent a meaning, did everybody define what this
> > > meaning is or only a few individuals ?
> > A community of scientists who communicate their shred meaning through
> > publications to a wider audience - you can find out what it means i you
> > read the relevant literature.
>
> And if we read the relevant literature they say the same you say:
> Somebody somewhere had some idea , such as gene distribution in
> subsequent generations.

Most certainly not. Biologists or other scientists don;t really care
where a word came from, or what it originally meant. A current
textbook will tell you how it is understood now, or how it ought to be
understood for the purpose of the book. That's all you need to know
for testing the concept.


> Spencer knew nothing of genes, why is his word
> "fitness" being used if the concept he had was different. Because we
> have children reading about "Fitness" and then reading Spencer  how
> "..... blacks respond to their white masters like tail wagging cocker
> spaniels..." The idea Spencer had with fitness was "suitable" as in
> whites more suitable than blacks.
>
> Then  you track down this author and tells the same story. We thus
> have some sort of real-time urban legend going round in circles.

Track down the bureaucrats who first came up with the notion that red
means stop at traffic lights, and ask them what they meant - after all
traffic lights looked much different then.

bpuharic

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 8:43:37 PM3/18/10
to
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:08:00 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 17, 12:42 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> if 'fitness' was a tautology, it wouldn't be testable in a lab; there
>> would be no purpose.
>
>> but fitness IS defineable AND is testable
>
>Who has defined what the modern concept is that "fitness" symbolically
>represents?

check the wikipedia article. it's pretty straightforward stuff

>In the case of a red traffic light , we have all defined that it
>represents stop for our own health. Now for the sake of our mental
>health who is this person that has defined what is meant with fitness
>or did we all decide to define some concept with it and I am
>seemingly the only person on this planet who can't figure out what
>this is.

your confusion is your problem. educate yourself. first, dump the
religious baggage you're carrying. your fundamentalism is a form of
mental illness that has corrupted your language skills

>
>We don't know who says so

irrelevant

Garamond Lethe

unread,
Mar 18, 2010, 10:56:02 PM3/18/10
to
On 2010-03-17, backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 12:42 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> if 'fitness' was a tautology, it wouldn't be testable in a lab; there
>> would be no purpose.
>
>> but fitness IS defineable AND is testable
>
> Who has defined what the modern concept is that "fitness" symbolically
> represents?

The probability that a single copy of an allele with selective
advantage $s$ will be fixed in a population of effective size $N_e$ is
$2s(N_e/N)/ (1-exp(-4N_es))$. (Barton)

> In the case of a red traffic light , we have all defined that it
> represents stop for our own health. Now for the sake of our mental
> health who is this person that has defined what is meant with fitness

Barton, _Evolution_, 2008.

> or did we all decide to define some concept with it and I am
> seemingly the only person on this planet who can't figure out what
> this is.

That's a good hypothesis. I will say, though, that you're in good
company. Graduate biology students at a pretty decent research
university also had only a fuzzy idea as to what fitness was, at
least before taking the required course in evolutionary biology.

>
> "Fitness" can only represent a meaning, did everybody define what this
> meaning is or only a few individuals ?

You can define it however you like. If your definition is useful, people
will adopt it.

> So again I ask who says "...It
> describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to
> reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual's
> genes in all the genes of the next generation....."

Barton, _Evolution_, 2008 (see the glossary for the non-mathematical
definition).

>
> We don't know who says so,

Really? I know who says so, and I've told you several times. You
may not want to believe it, but that's your problem, not our problem.

Kermit

unread,
Mar 20, 2010, 2:22:02 PM3/20/10
to
On Mar 17, 2:49 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Environment doesn't mean anything,
>
> > really? ever been in a blizzard?
>
> > only a creationist would say something this incredibly stupid
>
> >  it doesn't even have a meaning  in
>
> > >any context whether dependent or not. Our problem is that the symbols
> > >"fitness", "selection", "environment" etc. do not allow us to
> > >exhaustivly express the hundreds of different ideas many people have.
>
> > these are not 'symbols'. they are words.
>
> Which depends what you mean with "words" , since "words" itself has no
> meaning, only ideas have meaning. The utterances coming out of a
> person's mouth means nothing, they can only , using sound waves
> represent an idea - this is a point of logic.

I'm sorry; I'd like to reply to you, but your words have no meaning.
How can I respond to noise without content?

<snip noise>

Kermit

Kermit

unread,
Mar 20, 2010, 2:20:00 PM3/20/10
to

Faith is the belief in things unseen. I worked in a psych ward in
which there resided numerous patients who believed in things others
did not see. Why should I believe things which you cannot show me,
*especially when the things I *do see refute them?

Most Creationists are simply deluded, but you are crippled by your
obsession with, and misunderstanding of, language.

Kermit

Kermit

unread,
Mar 20, 2010, 2:27:04 PM3/20/10
to
On Mar 17, 11:56 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:10 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Fitness" can only represent a meaning, did everybody define what this
> > > meaning is or only a few individuals ?
> > A community of scientists who communicate their shred meaning through
> > publications to a wider audience - you can find out what it means i you
> > read the relevant literature.
>
> And if we read the relevant literature they say the same you say:

Thereby supporting his claim (and mine) that these terms (fitness,
theory, evolution) have meaning in the biological context.

> Somebody somewhere had some idea , such as gene distribution in
> subsequent generations. Spencer knew nothing of genes, why is his word
> "fitness" being used if the concept he had was different.

Jesus the Carpenter knew nothing of power saws. Why are we using the
word "carpentry" to describe very different activities by modern
people? Shouldn't we call it "Fred" or cocker spaniel", or something
else more sensible?

> Because we
> have children reading about "Fitness" and then reading Spencer  how
> "..... blacks respond to their white masters like tail wagging cocker
> spaniels..." The idea Spencer had with fitness was "suitable" as in
> whites more suitable than blacks.

Did he say that, or was he describing the society established by
Creationists?

>
> Then  you track down this author and tells the same story. We thus
> have some sort of real-time urban legend going round in circles.

I was able to explain to my daughter when she was six what the red
light meant at traffic intersections. You are saying that your studies
have left you less capable than a six year-old of understanding
language and functioning in the real world.

This is sad.

Kermit

0 new messages