Is natural selection a subclass of selection.?

[backspace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection makes ns a subclass of
selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
citations given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?

Compare
http://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revisions-to-the-natural-selection-article

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

[Richard Norman]

The wikipedia "selection" article you cite clearly defines selection
as well as mentioning that some selection is artificial. In other
words, not all selection is natural. Natural selection is a subset of
selection.

Some also separate out sexual selection as a separate type of process
so that it stands alongside (other types of) natural selection.

Why do you even question these trivial and obvious notions?
OK, you are backspace. So why am I surprised?

[backspace]

On Feb 18, 4:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), backspace
>

> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection makes ns a subclass of
> >selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
> >citations  given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?
>
> >Compare

> >http://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revision...

>
> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

> The wikipedia "selection" article you cite clearly defines selection
> as well as mentioning that some selection is artificial.  In other
> words, not all selection is natural.

You mean purposeless? Darwin meant un-intentional with natural. Thus
his natural selection reduces to ''purposeless purpose'', an
oxymoron.

Purposeless purpose isn't a tautology, its an oxymoron term. A
tautology though can be constructed and arbitrarily associated with an
oxymoron. For some reason nobody gets this.

[Richard Norman]

Perhaps the reason nobody gets this is because it is sheer idiocy.

[backspace]

On Feb 18, 4:43锟絧m, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:23:15 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Feb 18, 4:18锟絧m, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection锟絤akes ns a subclass of

> >> >selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or

> >> >citations 锟絞iven are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?

>
> >> >Compare
> >> >http://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revision...
>
> >> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> >> The wikipedia "selection" article you cite clearly defines selection

> >> as well as mentioning that some selection is artificial. 锟絀n other

> >> words, not all selection is natural.
>
> >You mean purposeless? Darwin meant un-intentional with natural. Thus
> >his natural selection reduces to ''purposeless purpose'', an
> >oxymoron.
>
> >Purposeless purpose isn't a tautology, its an oxymoron term. A
> >tautology though can be constructed and arbitrarily associated with an
> >oxymoron. For some reason nobody gets this.
>
> Perhaps the reason nobody gets this is because it is sheer idiocy.

What exactly?

See Charles Hodge treatise on Darwin

[Inez]

> oxymoron. For some reason nobody gets this.-

Oh I think there could be a purposeless purpose. For example, let's
say that there's a person who's purpose was to try and disprove
evolution by inaccurately paraphrasing the theory and then claiming it
was a tautology. That would be a purposeless purpose.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection makes ns a subclass of
>selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
>citations given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?

Your question flags no sources or citations for the
definition of "undefined". Are we to assume "undefined" is
undefined?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Jim T.]

Why is selection necessarily purposeful? What is the purpose of a
boulder rolling down a hill to select going left of a tree rather than
right?

[Robert Camp]

On Feb 18, 8:58�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 4:43 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:23:15 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >On Feb 18, 4:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakes ns a subclass of

> > >> >selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or

> > >> >citations given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?

>
> > >> >Compare
> > >> >http://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revision...
>
> > >> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> > >> The wikipedia "selection" article you cite clearly defines selection

> > >> as well as mentioning that some selection is artificial. In other

> > >> words, not all selection is natural.
>
> > >You mean purposeless? Darwin meant un-intentional with natural. Thus
> > >his natural selection reduces to ''purposeless purpose'', an
> > >oxymoron.
>
> > >Purposeless purpose isn't a tautology, its an oxymoron term. A
> > >tautology though can be constructed and arbitrarily associated with an
> > >oxymoron. For some reason nobody gets this.
>
> > Perhaps the reason nobody gets this is because it is sheer idiocy.
>
> What exactly?

This exactly - "Darwin meant un-intentional with natural. Thus his

natural selection reduces to ''purposeless purpose'', an oxymoron."

It's idiotic because it assumes Darwin meant "purpose" when he said
selection. He obviously, as you have been told innumerable times,
meant no implication of intent with the use of the word "selection."
He meant it as we would mean it when we say that a screen door selects
for size differences between particles and insects. He meant it as we
would mean it when we say that hydrologic sorting selects for
different size gravels in fluid environments.

He meant it metaphorically, and as such when coupled with "natural" it
is shorthand for empirically demonstrable processes.

What accounts for your inability to learn this?

RLC

[backspace]

On Feb 18, 7:42 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:58 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 4:43 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:23:15 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Feb 18, 4:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > > >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakesns a subclass of

Did Darwin use selection the pattern with a purpose or pattern without
a purpose sense? Which raises the real question we are dealing with:
What is purpose. Because our premises differ on this issue our
conclusions differ. Your atheist premise is that purpose is tied to
matter, while the YEC premise is that a certain arrangement of
matter(black ink in a book) represents purpose but does not constitute
it. Purpose, reality and the number 7 has no physical location from
the theist premise, while Atheist believe that these can only be tied
to matter. Hence the impossibility of communicating when using the
same objects.

Both natural and selection can be used in either the pattern or design
sense.
1) natural(unintended) selection(decision) - oxymoron
1a) purposeless purpose.
2) natural (intentional - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision)
selection(decision).
2a) purpose purpose - Tautology.

The object 'natural' does not mean purposeless, its majority
metaphorical usage is to represent purposeless (literal meaning) while
its only other minority metaphorical usage is to represent a pattern
with a purpose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design.

I propose we do away with the term *literal*, all language function as
metaphor, nothing has an actual literal meaning. Dictionaries provide
us with a roadmap , a repository so that if a Chinese speaker wants to
know what *selection* or *decision* is used for the majority of
situations he would be able to use the same object to communicate with
a native English speaker.

Thus instead we must have:
1) Literal dictionary meaning - Majority metaphorical usage.
2) Usual metaphorical usage - Minority metaphorical usage.

Hence the issue isn't what does ns literally mean, but what does is
metaphorically mean. IF we plug in the majority metaphor as derived
from a dictionary we have an oxymoron. The only way to escape
formulating a http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
is to use the term metaphorically, or as a contracted shorthand for a
full sentence.

This full sentence Charles Kingsley understood in his letters to
Darwin, he clearly indicated that NS was used metaphorically and not
literally, because literally its an oxymoron. http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CharlesKingsley

When we *interpret* Darwin in the context of Huxley, Charles Hodge,
Matthew, Samuel Butler, James Hutton, Charles Kingsley, Spencer, Henry
Osborn(From the Greeks to Darwin), Aristotle, Democritus Atomism and
the many other hundreds of authors that formulated the ideas Darwin
condensed we derive the following conclusion:

Natural selection was the metaphor for Patrick Matthew's 'natural
means of competitive selection,survival,preservation,accumulation' and
specifically the metaphor for SoF. SoF <=> natural means of
competitive survival.

Today Dawkins, Wikipedia Epicureans, realizing that SoF makes them
look cognitively deficient insist that SoF was the metaphor for NS.
Which violates rule nr.35 of language:
1) Thou shalt only usage terms metaphorically for phrases and
sentences, not the other way around.

In other words as John d. Brey in his book Tautological Oxymorons
explained the materialists are forced to usage pre-Enlightenment
volitional type language to express a world view where there is no
volition or free will; bastardizing syntax in an effort to destroy the
dichotomous divide between a pattern with a purpose and pattern
without a purpose.

Natural <=> unintentional and selection,survival,preservation etc.
used in the pattern without a purpose sense.

Our problem is to try and force dictionary meanings on metaphorical
usage. From a dictionary perspective NS is an oxymoron and therefore
to avoid ambiguity it must be used metaphorically for a fully
formulated sentence.

Compare what Charles Hodge wrote on the five pages on NS in OoS:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Charles_Hodge

http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html#ref04

Darwin wrote:

Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice
in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that,
as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to
them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is
a misnomer; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
affinities of the various elements? -and yet an acid cannot strictly
be said to elect the base with which it will in preference combine. It
has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or
Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of
gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what
is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are
almost necessary for brevity.[8]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm#Footnote_34_34
p.111 In his volume of "Lay Sermons, Reviews," etc., Professor Huxley
has a very severe critique on M. Flourens's book. He says little,
however, in reference to teleology, except in one paragraph, in which
we read: "M. Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection; it is
for him a contradiction in terms." Huxley's answer is, "The winds and
waves of the Bay of Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they
have with great care 'selected,' from an infinity of masses of silex,
all grains of sand below a certain size and have heaped them by
themselves over a great area.... A frosty night selects[Pg 111] the
hardy plants in a plantation from among the tender ones as effectually
as if the intelligence of the gardener had been operative in cutting
the weaker ones down."[35] If this means anything, it means that as
the winds and waves of the Bay of Biscay can make heaps of sand, so
similar unconscious agencies can, if you only give them time enough,
make an elephant or a man; for this is what Mr. Darwin says natural
selection has done. - Lay Sermons, p. 347.

[backspace]

http://www.bartleby.com/11/4001.html

... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
false term; .... - Charles Darwin

In other words Darwin meant that in the literal sense of the word ns
is an oxymoron: purposeless purpose.

[backspace]

On Feb 19, 7:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Darwin wrote as quoted by http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html#ref04

''..... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
is
a misnomer; ....''

Compare this to http://www.bartleby.com/11/4001.html

''.... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
is a false term; ...''

Why did the http://www.talkorigins.org website change ''false term''
to ''misnomer''?

Had I not double checked I would have accepted this at face value.

[Burkhard]

On Feb 19, 12:46 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Darwin wrote as quoted byhttp://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html#ref04

>
> ''..... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
> is
>  a misnomer; ....''
>

> Compare this tohttp://www.bartleby.com/11/4001.html

>
> ''.... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
> is a false term;  ...''
>

> Why did thehttp://www.talkorigins.orgwebsite change  ''false term''
> to ''misnomer''?

The TO website cites the third edition, Bartleby's classic is based on
the 6th edition, Darwin changed the expression - as you can easily
check with Darwin online. Since "misnomer" and "false term" mean
exactly the same thing, it is a stylistic variation anyway

[Ron O]

On Feb 18, 9:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection makes ns a subclass of
> selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
> citations  given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?
>

> Comparehttp://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revision...
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I work in animal genetics and natural selection plays a major part in
artificial selection or the over all selection of the animals that we
are working with. It is a subset of selection that we have to
constantly deal with. When you go out and pick next generations
breeders, factors that you aren't even selecting on affect which
animals make a contribution to the next generation. Most of this is
selection due to the environment which as artificial as it is today is
still the environment that the animals are living in. We can alter
the environment and boost our selection in certain directions. A lot
of times we fight the natural selection and go against what would be
selected for if we just let the animals randomly breed.

No big deal that there is more than one type of selection.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Camp]

On Feb 18, 11:11 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:42 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:58 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 4:43 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:23:15 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Feb 18, 4:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > > > >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakesnsa subclass of

I've already answered that. You're just rewording and repeating it. As
fond as you are of the "rephrase," I'm surprised you can't recognize
this.

> Which raises the real question we are dealing with:
> What is purpose. Because our premises differ on this issue our
> conclusions differ. Your atheist premise is that purpose is tied to
> matter, while the YEC premise is that a certain arrangement of
> matter(black ink in a book) represents purpose but does not constitute
> it.

I know this feels meaningful to you somehow, but it amounts to little
more than a confession that you're going to believe whatever supports
your faith.

> Purpose, reality and the number 7 has no physical location from
> the theist premise, while Atheist believe that these can only be tied
> to matter. Hence the impossibility of communicating when using the
> same objects.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that theists in general don't
consider conceptual phenomena physically localized (which doesn't mean
they can physically locate their keys when they're drunk, but then
this supports my point).

But even accepting your premise, the point is silly. I find no
difficulty in communicating with theists based upon this (apparent)
dualism argument. But it has little to do with what Darwin meant by
"selection," and even less to do with the evidence for evolution. The
difficulties in communication originate entirely from your own
confusion.

> Both natural and selection can be used in either the pattern or design
> sense.

Right. And football can be used in either the American or European
sense. So what?

> 1) natural(unintended) selection(decision) - oxymoron

The word "design" can be used in a pattern (unintended) or purposeful
(decision) sense. That's not an oxymoron, it's language. Learn
something about it.

RLC

<snip mindless repetition of gibberish that, to backspace, feels like
scholarship>

[backspace]

On Feb 19, 3:52 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection makes ns a subclass of
> > selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
> > citations  given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?
>
> > Comparehttp://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revision...
>
> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> I work in animal genetics and natural selection plays a major part in
> artificial selection or the over all selection of the animals that we
> are working with.  It is a subset of selection that we have to
> constantly deal with.  When you go out and pick next generations
> breeders, factors that you aren't even selecting on affect which
> animals make a contribution to the next generation.  Most of this is
> selection due to the environment which as artificial as it is today is
> still the environment that the animals are living in.

Do they express pre-existing attributes or do they acquire new
attributes?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:11:06 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>Did (X) use (Y) the pattern with a purpose or pattern without

>a purpose sense?

> Which raises the real question we are dealing with:

Does BS have an actual brain, or does he/she/it merely
update his/her/its perpetual and essentially meaningless
question (above), kept in a reference textfile and
cut/pasted randomly?

Enquiring minds (don't really) want to know...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 04:46:34 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Feb 19, 7:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin wrote as quoted by http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html#ref04
>
>''..... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
>is
> a misnomer; ....''
>
>Compare this to http://www.bartleby.com/11/4001.html
>
>''.... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
>is a false term; ...''
>
>Why did the http://www.talkorigins.org website change ''false term''
>to ''misnomer''?

Probably for the sake of brevity, and for the sake of
clarity for those such as yourself who have problems with
more than single words (and, it should be noted, problems
with many of those):

"mis·no·mer (mąs-n˝“m…r) n. 1. An error in naming a person
or place. 2.a. Application of a wrong name. b. A name
wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object.
[Middle English misnoumer, from Old French mesnomer, to
misname : mes-, wrongly; see MIS-1 + nommer, to name (from
Latin n˝minłre, from n˝men, name; see nŇ-men- below).]
--mis·no“mered adj.

Those with basic comprehension skills (backspace, you can
ask them if you wish) will readily detect that this
definition fits the phrase "false term" quite well.

>Had I not double checked I would have accepted this at face value.

....as it should be accepted, given the definition. Your
point, other than to expose your general cluelessness?

[backspace]

On Feb 19, 3:33 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:46 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 7:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Darwin wrote as quoted byhttp://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html#ref04
>
> > ''..... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
> > is
> >  a misnomer; ....''
>
> > Compare this tohttp://www.bartleby.com/11/4001.html
>
> > ''.... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection
> > is a false term;  ...''
>

> > Why did thehttp://www.talkorigins.orgwebsitechange  ''false term''

> > to ''misnomer''?
>
> The TO website cites the third edition, Bartleby's classic is based on
> the 6th edition, Darwin changed the expression - as you can easily
> check with Darwin online.  Since "misnomer" and "false term" mean
> exactly the same thing, it is a stylistic variation anyway

Thanks for pointing this out. Do you agree with me that in the context
used 'false term', 'misnomer' was a different way of saying oxymoron?

[Ron O]

Depends on what you call new attributes. For chickens there is no
overlap in body size between the original population and the current
populations under selection. This just means that the smallest
commercial bird today is larger than the largest commercial bird 50
years ago when they do a comparison between the 1957 random bred and
today's broiler chickens. So you can say that the genetics that
existed 50 years ago did not include the genetics of today. We have
likely selected for new mutations that give us this difference. If
you read the books on macro evolution you will see that body size is
one of the easiest traits to change. In only around 15 to 20 million
years you could go from a mammal the size of a large rat to the 20 ton
giants of the mammalian mega fauna after the extinction of the dinos.
We can make faster progress with artificial selection because nature
has to select on the whole animal and we can concentrate on a few
traits.

Is it a new attribute if the old population would average a bird of
3.5 lbs after 12-15 weeks and the current birds can get to over 13 lbs
in less than 12 weeks if we let them, but most are slaughtered at
around 5-6 weeks at around 5.5 lbs? Disease can stunt a bird, but for
a normal healthy modern bird there is no overlap in body weight. Even
the smallest is significantly larger than the largest from the
progenitor population raised on the same feed. This is after only
around 50 years of selection. We keep expecting to hit a wall, but
there is currently still a linear increase in body weight per
generation. So we've more than tripled the body weight of the birds in
around 60 generations. The mammalian Mega fauna example probably had
half a million generations at a much reduced rate of change. Even
doubling your body weight every 20,000 generations would give much
larger animals than ever evolved on land if you have half a million
generations to play with. The chicken example just says that the rate
of change can be much faster than that.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Can't see why. I'd say as a figure of speech, it is a form of
reification, or pathos. Owen Barfield, in Poetic Diction, gives a nice
analysis of this rhetorical device - with numerous examples, including
examples from science such as physics (objects "attracted to" each
other; nature that "hates" the vaccum etc)

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 19, 8:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words as John d. Brey in his book Tautological Oxymorons
> explained the materialists are forced to usage pre-Enlightenment
> volitional type language to express a world view where there is no
> volition or free will; bastardizing syntax in an effort to destroy the
> dichotomous divide between a pattern with a purpose and pattern
> without a purpose.

Congratulations you have found out that creation vs evolution is about
knowledge of free will.

It certainly does matter a whole lot for a person what version of free
will they accept. The evolutionist version of free will is generally
calculating an optimum, alike natural selection sorting out toward
optimal fitness. The creationist conception of free will is to have 1
of alternative results in the moment. So in a creationist sense
natural selection is not free will because only the fittest can
surive, the "alternate" less fit don't survive (in the end). Basically
evolutionist conception of free will is alike a thermostat "deciding"
to turn on the heat or not, given a pre-set desired temperature. The
thermostat acts in an entirely forced way, yet it is considered
choosing by evolutionists because it calculates an optimum. The
evolutionist conception of choosing, calculating an optimum, is what
they now use in artificial intelligence.

> Darwin wrote:
>
> Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice
> in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that,
> as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to
> them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is
> a misnomer; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
> affinities of the various elements? -and yet an acid cannot strictly
> be said to elect the base with which it will in preference combine. It
> has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or
> Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of
> gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what
> is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are
> almost necessary for brevity.[8]

Except ofcouse Darwin did not understand how choosing works in a
creationist sense. Darwin objectified emotions in his book about
emotions, and thereby became a social darwinist. So Darwin did not
understand how to distinghuish metaphorical use of the word
"choose" (the thermostat deciding the temperature is metaphorical),
from proper use of the word "choose". He argued in effect that the
metaphorical use is the correct use.

[John S. Wilkins]

Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 9:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection makes ns a subclass of
> > selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
> > citations given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?

...

>
> I work in animal genetics and natural selection plays a major part in
> artificial selection or the over all selection of the animals that we
> are working with. It is a subset of selection that we have to
> constantly deal with. When you go out and pick next generations
> breeders, factors that you aren't even selecting on affect which
> animals make a contribution to the next generation. Most of this is
> selection due to the environment which as artificial as it is today is
> still the environment that the animals are living in. We can alter
> the environment and boost our selection in certain directions. A lot
> of times we fight the natural selection and go against what would be
> selected for if we just let the animals randomly breed.
>
> No big deal that there is more than one type of selection.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Nevertheless backspace inadvertently asks an interesting formal
question. Here's my answer:

"Selection" includes artifical selection, sexual selection and
everything else (natural selection). They are all formally the same
process, with differing selective "agents" (we privilege sexual or mate
choice selection, and actual agent-based selection as requiring their
own name. In my view they are special cases of natural selection in
which the environmental factors happen to be either mates or breeder
choice). "Natural" selection is just what is left over once these are
removed from the class, or it includes them (the latter being contrary
to general practice).

Selection processes are a form of simulated annealing algorithms, in
which solutions are found by iterations of the introduction of random
noise into existing solution pools, and adopting the best, rinse and
repeat.

Simulated annealing algorithms are a subset of sorting algorithms. So:

Sorting(simulated annealing, (selection(sexual, artificial, other),
other), other)
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 20, 1:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 9:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakes ns a subclass of

Horrific, putting choice in the same category as sorting, is to
destroy main categories in organizing knowledge. We all known that
your knowledge about choosing, in the 1 of alternative results in the
moment sense of it, is SHIT.

Free will is involved in explaining the origins of the universe. It is
not something that can be conveniently allocated as a sub- sub- sub-
category of evolution theory, you stupid ignorant philistine.

[backspace]

On Feb 19, 11:16 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words as John d. Brey in his book Tautological Oxymorons
> > explained the materialists are forced to usage pre-Enlightenment
> > volitional type language to express a world view where there is no
> > volition or free will; bastardizing syntax in an effort to destroy the
> > dichotomous divide between a pattern with a purpose and pattern
> > without a purpose.
>
> Congratulations you have found out that creation vs evolution is about
> knowledge of free will.
>
> It certainly does matter a whole lot for a person what version of free
> will they accept. The evolutionist version of free will is generally
> calculating an optimum, alike natural selection sorting out toward
> optimal fitness. The creationist conception of free will is to have 1
> of alternative results in the moment. So in a creationist sense
> natural selection is not free will because only the fittest can
> surive, the "alternate" less fit don't survive (in the end). Basically
> evolutionist conception of free will is alike a thermostat "deciding"
> to turn on the heat or not, given a pre-set desired temperature. The
> thermostat acts in an entirely forced way, yet it is considered
> choosing by evolutionists because it calculates an optimum. The
> evolutionist conception of choosing, calculating an optimum, is what
> they now use in artificial intelligence.

Artificial selection darwin lifted from his grandad Artificial
cultivation. AS or AC is the exploitation of a correlation in
patterns, allowing one to make predictions.

> > Darwin wrote:
>
> > Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice
> > in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that,
> > as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to
> > them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is
> > a misnomer; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
> > affinities of the various elements? -and yet an acid cannot strictly
> > be said to elect the base with which it will in preference combine. It
> > has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or
> > Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of
> > gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what
> > is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are
> > almost necessary for brevity.[8]

> Except ofcouse Darwin did not understand how choosing works in a
> creationist sense. Darwin objectified emotions in his book about
> emotions, and thereby became a social darwinist.  So Darwin did not
> understand how to distinghuish metaphorical use of the word
> "choose" (the thermostat deciding the temperature is metaphorical),
> from proper use of the word "choose". He argued in effect that the
> metaphorical use is the correct use.

Very good, if you have not read it yet, read Tautological Oxymorons by
John D. Brey on google books.

[backspace]

His grandad was Erasum DArwin and he coined Artificial Cultivation.

[backspace]

On Feb 20, 12:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 9:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakes ns a subclass of

> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Are you referring to Darwin's concept with the object natural
selection?

[Burkhard]

On Feb 20, 12:21 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 9:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakes ns a subclass of

Furthermore, the main means of artificial selection seem to be to
influence mate selection - either positively by bringing good pairs of
animals into close proximity, or negatively by various more or less
pleasant, more or less lethal means (from castration to puppies in the
sack).

One thing that strikes me with several of our resident creationists
(prawnster most recently) is that in artificial selection, they seem
to think of the intention of the breeder as a sort of quasi-physical
ingredient that is "added" to the selection process like salt is added
to a recipe. - which then makes AS look much more different from NS
than it is, which seems to be one of the sources for their
confusion.

> "Natural" selection is just what is left over once these are
> removed from the class, or it includes them (the latter being contrary
> to general practice).
>
> Selection processes are a form of simulated annealing algorithms, in
> which solutions are found by iterations of the introduction of random
> noise into existing solution pools, and adopting the best, rinse and
> repeat.
>
> Simulated annealing algorithms are a subset of sorting algorithms. So:
>
> Sorting(simulated annealing, (selection(sexual, artificial, other),
> other), other)
> --

> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

[backspace]

On Feb 18, 7:23 pm, "Jim T." <x...@y.z> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:23:15 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 18, 4:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakes ns a subclass of

> >> >selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
> >> >citations given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?
>
> >> >Compare
> >> >http://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revision...
>
> >> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> >> The wikipedia "selection" article you cite clearly defines selection
> >> as well as mentioning that some selection is artificial. In other
> >> words, not all selection is natural.
>
> >You mean purposeless? Darwin meant un-intentional with natural. Thus
> >his natural selection reduces to ''purposeless purpose'', an
> >oxymoron.
>
> >Purposeless purpose isn't a tautology, its an oxymoron term. A
> >tautology though can be constructed and arbitrarily associated with an
> >oxymoron. For some reason nobody gets this.
>
> Why is selection necessarily purposeful? What is the purpose of a
> boulder rolling down a hill to select going left of a tree rather than
> right?

1) A tornado struck the town selecting the houses on the left for
destruction.
2) The man selected the house on the right to buy.
1) is a pattern while 2) is a design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#Calculation_of_specified_complexity
"....Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is
frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and
automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human
"intelligent designers"[26]....."

Is selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Peppered_Moth_Pattern_or_Design

A bird goes out looking for moths to eat. The bird *detects* the white
moths, since birds don't have teleological goals towards their higher
destiny the correct term to use for the the black moths being eaten is
in the (detection, pattern) not (selection, design) sense. The birds
engaged in *natural detection*.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 20, 2:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?
>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Peppered_Moth_Pattern_or_Design
>
> A bird goes out looking for moths to eat. The bird *detects* the white
> moths, since birds don't have teleological goals towards their higher
> destiny the correct term to use for the the black moths being eaten is
> in the (detection, pattern) not (selection, design) sense. The birds
> engaged in *natural detection*.

It is social darwinism to conceive of oneself as participating in
natural selection. To think as objective fact that you are engaged in
a struggle for life. It is indistinghuishable from positing life as
having value that one ought to preserve, it is positing a morality of
life. Social darwinism is the correct interpretation of natural
selection theory, or differential reproductive succes, in the way the
theory is presented by biologists.

One has to identify love for life subjectively instead of objectively,
and conceive of free will as an advantageous trait in natural
selection to avoid interpretation of natural selection theory as
social darwinism. But the fact is that most Darwinists think that love
can be objectively established to exist in the brain, and Darwinist
biologists conceive of organisms choosing as organisms calcuating an
optimal course of action, not as organisms having free will. So the
fact is that most all evolutionists are social darwinists who derive a
morality of life from natural selection theory.

It is difficult to tell that they are social darwinists because
morality of life in many cases overlaps with reasonable judgement
about what is good and bad. According to common reasonable judgement
life is a good worth preserving, and also according to social
darwinism life is a good worth preserving. It takes some generations
for the bad effects of evolution theory to take hold.

Social darwinist judgement does overlap a lot with normal judgement,
but social darwinism gives scientific certainty about what is good and
bad, and such certainty is far greater than certainty in normal
subjective judgement.

Also because social darwinism can't rely on emotion, it then follows
that social darwinism must be endlessly rationalized, to ever
increasing complexity. A social darwinist can't just say like: this
action is good because it sustains life. The goodness has to be
rationalized in turn. So then the rationalization becomes: goodness is
produced by sustaining life. And so on, untill the rationalizations
become too complex to handle, at which point social darwinists refer
to complexity itself as a rationalization for morality.

The younger evolutionists are more brutal and cruel than older
evolutionists, because older evolutionists still have the benefit of
living in times when the holocaust was vividly held in memory. The
holocaust is still held in memory fortunately, but much, much, less
than it was decades ago. It is inconceivable to me that a next
generation evolutionist activist would be more civilized than Dawkins.
Dawkins is already on the brink of what is civilized, he is much
eccentric. A next generation evolutionists activist would likely have
a much more pronounced sadistic tendency, because of having relatively
little knowledge about the holocaust. Most likely next generation
evolutionists would conceive of the holocaust as just yet another
episode of religiously inspired violence, having no special
significance over many other religiously inspired attrocities in
history. So they become much more social darwinistic, believing that
social darwinism never really existed in the first place.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:10:48 -0800 (PST),
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Is selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?
> >
> > http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Peppered_Moth_Pattern_or_Design
> >
> > A bird goes out looking for moths to eat. The bird *detects* the white
> > moths, since birds don't have teleological goals towards their higher
> > destiny the correct term to use for the the black moths being eaten is
> > in the (detection, pattern) not (selection, design) sense. The birds
> > engaged in *natural detection*.

> It is social darwinism to conceive of oneself as participating in
> natural selection. To think as objective fact that you are engaged in
> a struggle for life.

No: that's called "natural selection," or if you prefer "unnatural
selection:" not "social darwinism."

Two years ago I almost died due to pneumonia caused by an
unidentified, but probable, _Yersinia_ bacillus. It took a massive
amount of antibiotics to save my life, as well as a large amount
of ice to lower my temperature, and a bloody hell of a lot of IV
saline solution.

You would have people believe that the act of saving my life was
"social darwinism," and that's just asinine, insulting, and wrong.
It took TENS OF THOUSANDS of people to save my life, from the
medical researchers who discovered treatmeans, to the truck
drivers that transported equipment, to the janitors who washed the
hospital floors.

And almost all of them did it for money---- not for any "social"
ideology, not for any "protect the common good" reasons.


--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:44:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[John Stockwell]

On Feb 20, 6:15 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:23 pm, "Jim T." <x...@y.z> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:23:15 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 18, 4:18 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:29:39 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectionmakesns a subclass of

> > >> >selection. But since the article itself flags as no sources or
> > >> >citations given are we to assume that 'selection' is undefined?
>
> > >> >Compare
> > >> >http://www.evolutioncreationism.info/the-arbitrary-wikipedia-revision...
>
> > >> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>
> > >> The wikipedia "selection" article you cite clearly defines selection
> > >> as well as mentioning that some selection is artificial. In other
> > >> words, not all selection is natural.
>
> > >You mean purposeless? Darwin meant un-intentional with natural. Thus
> > >his natural selection reduces to ''purposeless purpose'', an
> > >oxymoron.
>
> > >Purposeless purpose isn't a tautology, its an oxymoron term. A
> > >tautology though can be constructed and arbitrarily associated with an
> > >oxymoron. For some reason nobody gets this.
>
> > Why is selection necessarily purposeful? What is the purpose of a
> > boulder rolling down a hill to select going left of a tree rather than
> > right?
>
> 1) A tornado struck the town selecting the houses on the left for
> destruction.
> 2) The man selected the house on the right to buy.
> 1) is a pattern while 2) is a design.

Design? No, it is buying a house. The problem is an optimization
problem with variables that include the man's income, the location
of his job, his willingness to commute, his preferences based on his
background, his wife's, the number of children he has, the style of
house, the state of the neighborhood, and likely other less
identifiable factors etc. The man's decision might ultimately hinge
on his personal superstitions, which could include sighting a flock of
birds, or the outcome of a coin flip.

We could easily view the problem of man to house as being the
traversal of a high dimensional landscape with local minima
represented by the various houses. We then might consider
"man" and "house" to be statistical objects, rather than a specific
man and a specific house. A population of humans purchases
members of a population of houses, commonalities in these outcomes
as being more reflective of economic conditions, quality of
manufacture of houses, demographics of the population, etc., than of
"conscious thought".


>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#Calculatio...

> "....Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is
> frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and
> automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human
> "intelligent designers"[26]....."
>
> Is selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?

Selection weights the outcome. It is not clear that "specified
complexity" actually means anything.

>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Peppered_Moth_Pattern_or_Design
>
> A bird goes out looking for moths to eat. The bird *detects* the white
> moths, since birds don't have teleological goals towards their higher
> destiny the correct term to use for the the black moths being eaten is
> in the (detection, pattern) not (selection, design) sense. The birds
> engaged in *natural detection*.

The terms "bird" and "moth" are statistical entities in this usage.
The black moth gene arises by mutation from any population of gray
moths.
The bird activities can also be viewed as an optimization problem,
where the bird has physical needs that it is trying to satisfy, is
constrained by the range of flight, number of baby birds to be fed,
the proximity of predators and other hazards. Statistically speaking
edible targets that are easier to see are going to be eaten by the
birds. The population of moths is going to vary due the speed at which
moths fly
and the ability of moths to be hard to see.

For example we can almost predict the things that you will say based
on only a few facts that we know about you. If you are very
predictable can you really say that your choices represent
"complexity" specified or otherwise.

-John

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 22, 6:45 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
.
>
> And almost all of them did it for money---- not for any "social"
> ideology, not for any "protect the common good" reasons.

In creationism both subjectivity, and objectivity are validated.
Subjectivity applies to the creator, to the owner of the decision, and
objectivity applies to the created, the chosen alternatives. While
what you do is you only validate objectivity, which causes you not to
be able to express gratitude in a straightforward way.

So you should consider your fate a matter of decision. Either you
lived or died, and the decision turned out that you lived. Then you
can express grattitude to the owner of those decisions (if you love
life).

Gratitude goes from heart to heart, it goes from owner of decision, to
owner of decision. This way the spiritual is directly connected to the
material, without there being any evidence of the spiritual
whatsoever.

[Tim Anderson]

On Feb 20, 10:51 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:43 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<snip>
>
> His grandad was Erasum DArwin and he coined Artificial Cultivation.- Hide quoted text -
>
<snip>

Erasum Darwin - the Ultimate Natural Selector.