Aristotle and his tautological influence
backspace
== Tautologies from Aristotle ==
(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
:'''OoS:'''".............So what hinders the different parts (of the
body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the
teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted
for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating
the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was
the '''result of accident'''. And in like manner as to other parts in
which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
and still perish.........."
The passage reduces to: Things appropriately constituted were
preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished. Or in
other words: The good ones lived, the bad ones died , which explains
everything. ''Appropriately constituted'' and ''preserved'' are a
synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but it
doesn't independently derive the actual reason something was
preserved. To identify the tautology take any of the synonymous terms
or words and formulate a question:
* Other than noting it was preserved how was it's constitutability
measured?
* Other than noting it wasn't constituted how was it's perishability
measured?
Wasn't constituted and perishable says the same thing twice, making
Aristotle's argument watertight, explaining everything meeting any
contingency with unflagging success , it cannot be refuted and is
thus a [[LogicalFallacy]]. His tautology reduces to: The good one
lived, the bad one died. This can be extended to anything in existence
such as: ".....the good gene survived, the bad gene died...." in the
light of [[OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth]] -
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth.
After quoting Aristotle, Darwin went on to say: "...... we can see
here the principle of [[NaturalSelection]] shadowed forth....". The
question is how did Darwin solve the problem of genes as a
[[CyberneticAbstraction]] if he couldn't define the problem? This
question must be extended back to Aristotle and the answer is that
Aristotle explained everything: past, present and future, thus
nothing, his control of the facts was an illusion. Furthermore
Aristotle's premise that everything was the ''result of accident''
means that everything he said ultimately is the result on an accident,
including the very paragraph itself, why then should we believe a word
he said?
Aristotle formulated a rhetorical tautology in order to convince that
the apparent design in the universe was a '''result of accident'''. He
allowed no means for his [[world view]] to be [[Falsifiable]], thus
his conclusion based on proposition which cannot be refuted was a
[[Non_sequitur_(logic) Non sequitur (logic)]]. [[CharlesKingsley]] in
a letter dated 1863 to [[FrederickMaurice]] he interpreted Oos as:
:".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by
the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out against
Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact or else
by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of the scientific
mind; they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a
master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the
absolute '''empire of accident''' and a living, immanent, ever-working
God..."
:[[JohnBurroughs]] in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
call '''chance or Natural Selection'''. Well may Darwin have said that
the eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."
The concept [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] had with [[NaturalSelection]] in
1922, March 5 New York Times differed from Burroughs interpretation.
Today many use [[NaturalSelection]] in the volitional sense. NS like
"You have a green light" has no single true meaning, the various
concepts is important by many authors and their [[world view]]. The
difficulty is that they all used [[NaturalSelection]] but what they
meant by it differed like day contrasts with night.
During the 19th Tremaux (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/
00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf) differed with the belief held then
that the mind is an illusion. If a person says: "My mind is an
illusion created by the brain" then that very sentence itself is an
illusion because it was formulated by his mind. In addition why should
one believe a word he says if he thinks everything he says is the
result of illusions in his head?
Iain
<snip>
Is there a point in any of the above?
--Iain
Steven L.
> Latest update to my ongoing tautology article at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
> == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
> :'''OoS:'''".............So what hinders the different parts (of the
> body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the
> teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted
> for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating
> the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was
> the '''result of accident'''. And in like manner as to other parts in
> which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
> therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
> happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
> were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
> spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
> and still perish.........."
We've been through this already at least twice before.
The Theory of Evolution is not a tautology.
You creationists can't have it both ways.
You creationists can't claim sometimes that "Darwinism" is wrong, and at
other times claim that "Darwinism" is a tautology. Because by
definition, tautologies are vacuously true and never wrong.
Why is it that everybody else sees that but you?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
wf3h
> Latest update to my ongoing tautology article athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
> == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
nobody cares what aristotle said.
lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
> :'''OoS:'''".............So what hinders the different parts (of the
> body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the
> teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted
> for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating
> the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was
> the '''result of accident'''. And in like manner as to other parts in
> which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
> therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
> happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
> were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
> spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
> and still perish.........."
>
> The passage reduces to: Things appropriately constituted were
> preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished
backspace isn't conversant with modern science. it has been noted
that modern science keeps alive people who previously would have
died....from diabetes for example
thus intervention meaureably affects organisms the environment would
have screened out. thus there is a difference between 'natural
selection' and what modern medicine can achieve. since this is true,
natural selection is not a tautology
and the idiot creationist's 2000 year old failed idea takes another
shot in the testicles.
you guys need to take a serious look in the mirror. the 'picture of
dorian gray' is catching up with you.
Burkhard
The teeth have a sharp front, adapted for dividing, and the grinders
flat, and serviceable for masticating the food;
Of course, if you drop in your "reformulation" all the empirical content
from the specific example, you end up with an empty argumentation scheme.
Friar Broccoli
Yup. That is the key point.
>
> > Wasn't constituted and perishable says the same thing twice, making
> > Aristotle's argument watertight, explaining everything meeting any
> > contingency with unflagging success , it cannot be refuted and is
> > thus a [[LogicalFallacy]]. His tautology reduces to: The good one
> > lived, the bad one died. This can be extended to anything in existence
> > such as: ".....the good gene survived, the bad gene died...." in the
> > light of [[OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth]] -
> >http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-....
Padmar Mushkin
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>We've been through this already at least twice before.
>
>The Theory of Evolution is not a tautology.
>
>You creationists can't have it both ways.
>
>You creationists can't claim sometimes that "Darwinism" is wrong, and at
>other times claim that "Darwinism" is a tautology. Because by
>definition, tautologies are vacuously true and never wrong.
>
>Why is it that everybody else sees that but you?
Be careful to distinguish between the different meanings of
'tautology'. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology :
Tautology (rhetoric), repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words to
say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail
to provide additional clarity and meaning.
Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal
unconditioned truth, always valid.
But either way the tautology argument is bogus.
David Hare-Scott
Only if one is possessed of (by?) a monomania about tautology as is the OP.
David
backspace
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:49:33 -0400, "Steven L."
>
> >We've been through this already at least twice before.
>
> >The Theory of Evolution is not a tautology.
>
> >You creationists can't have it both ways.
>
> >You creationists can't claim sometimes that "Darwinism" is wrong, and at
> >other times claim that "Darwinism" is a tautology. Because by
> >definition, tautologies are vacuously true and never wrong.
>
> >Why is it that everybody else sees that but you?
>
> Be careful to distinguish between the different meanings of
>
> Tautology (rhetoric), repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words to
> say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail
> to provide additional clarity and meaning.
>
> Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal
> unconditioned truth, always valid.
>
> But either way the tautology argument is bogus.
Here is Wilkins ongoing articles on the tautology issue:
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/09/06/untitled-4tautology-7-conclusions/
and my notes on him : http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnWilkins
"...Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use
of the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
*is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
result, it was retained. That's selection in biology. ..."
Note:
"...Because it achieved that result, it was retained. That's selection
in biology...."
"Achieved that result" and "was retained" says the same thing twice,
making what Wilkins wrote irrefutable and thus fallacious.
backspace
> :[[JohnBurroughs]] in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
> Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
> all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
> call '''chance or Natural Selection'''. Well may Darwin have said that
> the eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
> Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
> they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."
> The concept [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] had with [[NaturalSelection]] in
> 1922, March 5 New York Times differed from Burroughs interpretation.
> Today many use [[NaturalSelection]] in the volitional sense. NS like
> "You have a green light" has no single true meaning, the various
> concepts is important by many authors and their [[world view]]. The
> difficulty is that they all used [[NaturalSelection]] but what they
> meant by it differed like day contrasts with night.
[[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
"....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
and place in order line after line of animals in their true
evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."
Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs , Darwin's and Aristotle
had. Which demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single
true meaning.
Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
mountain then non-volitional. What does the various authors today mean
with "selection" : volition or non-volition?
backspace
> [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
> "....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
> Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
> process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
> overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
> and place in order line after line of animals in their true
> evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
> the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
> Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."
>
> Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
> etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs , Darwin's andAristotle
> had. Which demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single
> true meaning.
>
> Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> mountain then non-volitional. What does the various authors today mean
> with "selection" : volition or non-volition?
=== Tautology post ===
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/08/26/tautology-4-what-is-a-tautology/
"....It is so far from being trivial that even though it had, in one
form or another, been used to explain a lack of change for over 2500
years, selection-type explanations had not been used to explain change
until Darwin suggested it...."
And what Darwin meant with "selection-type explanations " was the
Aristotle quote: result of accident. Which was interpreted as such by
Osborn, http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CharlesKingsley and
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs. Waagen and Osborn
though differed from Darwin, their concept was different yet he used
the same terminology, this is where the confusion comes in.
What is the concept that Wilkins has with what Darwin suggested?
Wilkins concept seems to be volitional , non-chance but then he no
longer is interpreting Darwin, he must label his theories: The Wilkins
theory of transformation. Dawkins says that " .... natural selection
is the exact opposite of chance...." Which wasn't the interpretation
of Darwin by Burroughs, Osborn, Waagen and Kingsley. Dawkins must
formulate his own theories and label his theories: The Dawkins theory
of transformation. We are dealing with thousands of different
theories , all of the them using the same terms but having different
concepts.
wf3h
you mean because someone had an idea...90 years ago...that we can't
tell anything about that idea?
what about the bible? no one agrees on what's in the bible. so jesus
doesn't exist?
that your claim?
interesting idea...creationist atheists...the bible's wrong. jesus
doesn't exist.
thanks much
backspace
> > Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
> > etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs , Darwin's andAristotle
> > had. Which demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single
> > true meaning.
> you mean because someone had an idea...90 years ago...that we can't
> tell anything about that idea?
The ideas and the terminology (evolution, selection) back then and the
different idea today using the same terminology(evolution ,
selection) must indicated. Let us contrast Dennett with Osborn,
Waagen:
=== Osborn on Waagen ===
New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
"....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
and place in order line after line of animals in their true
evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."
=== dennette ===
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/evolerr.htm
"...How can natural selection do this without intelligence? It does
not consciously seek out these rationales, but when it stumbles on
them, the brute requirements of replication ensure that it
"recognizes" their value. The illusion of intelligence is created
because of our limited perspective on the process; evolution may well
have tried all the "stupid moves" in addition to the "smart moves",
but the stupid moves, being failures, disappeared from view. All we
see is the unbroken string of triumphs. Endnote 6 When we set
ourselves the task of explaining why those were the triumphs, we
uncover the reasons for things--the reasons already "acknowledged" by
the relative success of organisms endowed with those things. ..."
Osborn:
"....not ... by chance as Darwin ... supposed, but through a continues
and well ordered process..."
A well ordered process is what use to indicate volition. But Dennett
tells us :
"....How can natural selection do this without intelligence?..."
Both Osborn and Dennette used "natural selection" but how should we
interpret the concept they had with it?
wf3h
> On Oct 19, 1:34 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
> > > etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs , Darwin's andAristotle
> > > had. Which demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single
> > > true meaning.
> > you mean because someone had an idea...90 years ago...that we can't
> > tell anything about that idea?
>
> The ideas and the terminology (evolution, selection) back then and the
> different idea today using the same terminology(evolution ,
> selection) must indicated. Let us contrast Dennett with Osborn,
> Waagen:
>
> === Osborn on Waagen ===
> New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
> "....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
> Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
> process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
> overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
> and place in order line after line of animals in their true
> evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
> the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
> Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."
>
> === dennette ===http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/evolerr.htm
> "...How can natural selection do this without intelligence? It does
> not consciously seek out these rationales, but when it stumbles on
> them, the brute requirements of replication ensure that it
> "recognizes" their value. The illusion of intelligence is created
> because of our limited perspective on the process; evolution may well
> have tried all the "stupid moves" in addition to the "smart moves",
> but the stupid moves, being failures, disappeared from view. All we
> see is the unbroken string of triumphs. Endnote 6 When we set
> ourselves the task of explaining why those were the triumphs, we
> uncover the reasons for things--the reasons already "acknowledged" by
> the relative success of organisms endowed with those things. ..."
>
> Osborn:
> "....not ... by chance as Darwin ... supposed, but through a continues
> and well ordered process..."
> A well ordered process is what use to indicate volition. But Dennett
> tells us :
> "....How can natural selection do this without intelligence?..."
>
> Both Osborn and Dennette used "natural selection" but how should we
> interpret the concept they had with it?
since, even in YOUR OWN QUOTE, the term 'natural selection' is NOT
used by osborn, you just PROVED MY POINT.
90 years ago the terminology was much different.
again i ask you to prove your point. you can't. natural selection is
EMPIRICALLY TESTABLE and therefore can NOT be a tautology
your language skills, as i've pointed out before, are rooted in 3rd
century views of the world. they allow NO concepts of empiricism at
all. that's creationism in a nutshell: NO EMPIRICISM.
the REAL challenge galileo made to the church was not heliocentrism
but empiricism as a cornerstone of science.
and you have just proven why this idea is so dangerous. anyone who can
find out things for him/herself is a direct challenge to 'authority'
and the 'revealed word'.
that's why your worldview can't handle science
wf3h
> On Oct 19, 12:10 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
> > "....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
> > Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
> > process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
> > overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
> > and place in order line after line of animals in their true
> > evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
> > the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
> > Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."
>
> > Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
> > etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs , Darwin's andAristotle
> > had. Which demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single
> > true meaning.
>
> > Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> > there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> > mountain then non-volitional. What does the various authors today mean
> > with "selection" : volition or non-volition?
>
> "....It is so far from being trivial that even though it had, in one
> form or another, been used to explain a lack of change for over 2500
> years, selection-type explanations had not been used to explain change
> until Darwin suggested it...."
>
> And what Darwin meant with "selection-type explanations " was the
> Aristotle quote: result of accident.
really? aristotle had the idea of differential reproduction?
you're gonna have to prove that. but we know your language skills
aren't up to it
backspace
True, I believe he didn't use the phrase in the entire article if not
mistaken, he used "Evolution".
(I am glad you picked it up, at least you are paying attention to my
posts :))
Evolution what ? Numerous times authors use "evolution"and "NS" so
interchangeably that it isn't clear if they think there is any sort of
distinction in the concept Darwin had with the terms. He didn't , his
term "theory of evolution" and what that meant was the same
Aristotelian concept reformulated:
Only place Darwin defined ToE:
"....This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man,
is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the
preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been
evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a
doubt..."
=== reduces to ===
..... preservation of ... favourable individuals, and of the
destruction of unfavourable ones .....
Which is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed and is
thus a fallacy.
backspace
> EMPIRICALLY TESTABLE and therefore can NOT be a tautology
And until you define what your concept is with NS you are not even
wrong.
wf3h
> On Oct 19, 2:35 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > since, even in YOUR OWN QUOTE, the term 'natural selection' is NOT
> > used by osborn, you just PROVED MY POINT.
>
> True, I believe he didn't use the phrase in the entire article if not
> mistaken, he used "Evolution".
> (I am glad you picked it up, at least you are paying attention to my
> posts :))
> Evolution what ? Numerous times authors use "evolution"and "NS"
you ever look up the definition of the word 'run?' try it. see how
many definitions there are.
so
> interchangeably that it isn't clear if they think there is any sort of
> distinction in the concept Darwin had with the terms. He didn't , his
> term "theory of evolution" and what that meant was the same
> Aristotelian concept reformulated:
no one cares what aristotle thought and you haven't established why
this is relevant. darwin's mechanism of evolution by natural selection
via differential reproduction is well understood. except by you. you
admitted as much several weeks ago when you said you couldn't believe
that other creationists understood what evolution meant even if they
disagreed with it.
so you admit that you...and ONLY you...have a problem understanding
what 'evolution' is.
>
> Only place Darwin defined ToE:
> "....This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man,
> is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the
> preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been
> evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a
> doubt..."
and what is 'god?'; 'jesus?', the 'bible?'
your linguistic skills generate random nonsense since your 'argument',
such as it is, is applicable to ANY collection of words.
which means it's ultimately useless.
>
> === reduces to ===
> ..... preservation of ... favourable individuals, and of the
> destruction of unfavourable ones .....
>
> Which is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed and is
> thus a fallacy.-
since you can not understand the concept of 'empiricism', being a
creationist, it's useless to try and help you understand. i've told
you before that historians like dan diner have identified
fundamentalists like you as having impaired language skills due to
your religious beliefs.
you prove him right every time you post.
John Wilkins
<93ad3957-b2f5-4cc2...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:48�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Latest update to my ongoing tautology article
> > athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
> >
> > == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> > (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
>
> nobody cares what aristotle said.
Why not? I do...
Mitchell Coffey
> On Oct 18, 2:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Latest update to my ongoing tautology article athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
> > == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> > (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
>
> nobody cares what aristotle said.
Aristotle was a moron.
Mitchell Coffey
Kermit
> On Oct 19, 1:34 am, Padmar Mushkin <x...@y.z> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:49:33 -0400, "Steven L."
>
> > <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >We've been through this already at least twice before.
>
> > >The Theory of Evolution is not a tautology.
>
> > >You creationists can't have it both ways.
>
> > >You creationists can't claim sometimes that "Darwinism" is wrong, and at
> > >other times claim that "Darwinism" is a tautology. Because by
> > >definition, tautologies are vacuously true and never wrong.
>
> > >Why is it that everybody else sees that but you?
>
> > Be careful to distinguish between the different meanings of
> > 'tautology'. Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology:
>
> > Tautology (rhetoric), repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words to
> > say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail
> > to provide additional clarity and meaning.
>
> > Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal
> > unconditioned truth, always valid.
>
> > But either way the tautology argument is bogus.
>
> and my notes on him :http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnWilkins
>
> "...Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use
> of the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
> changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
> implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
> problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
> tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
> *is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
> connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
> unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
> biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
> thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
> result, it was retained. That's selection in biology. ..."
>
> Note:
> "...Because it achieved that result, it was retained. That's selection
> in biology...."
>
> "Achieved that result" and "was retained" says the same thing twice,
> making what Wilkins wrote irrefutable and thus fallacious.
No; "achieved that result" means expressing a phenotype that leads to
a higher rate of reproduction under the environmental conditions of
the time. To the degree that that phenotype is genetic, it will be
more likely to be passed on. Those sentences do not say the same
thing, nor do they represent the same process.
Most Creationists, for example, claim that there is some sort of
barrier beyond which species adaptation cannot go. This would make no
sense if "beneficial traits" and "retaining the genes" were identical
concepts. As it is, this assertion is perfectly sensible, but wrong
(there is no evidence to support it, and nobody has proposed a
mechanism for it).
I would think that someone who has been as obsessed about tautologies
as you have been, and for so long, would actually understand them.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Oct 18, 9:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> mountain then non-volitional. What does the various authors today mean
> with "selection" : volition or non-volition?
They don't say much about it - it is understood by sane people that
when it's natural selection, it is without intent, and when it is
human selection it is purposeful. There are gray areas - is sexual
selection by humans intentional? The selectors are not necessarily
intending to encourage certain genetic traits, but they are selecting
for purposes which may lead to that. It is probably not your intent,
for example, to never pass on any genetic propensity you have for
crippled linguistic skills.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Oct 19, 12:10 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
> > "....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
> > Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
> > process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
> > overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
> > and place in order line after line of animals in their true
> > evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
> > the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
> > Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."
>
> > Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
> > etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs , Darwin's andAristotle
> > had. Which demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single
> > true meaning.
>
> > Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> > there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> > mountain then non-volitional. What does the various authors today mean
> > with "selection" : volition or non-volition?
>
> "....It is so far from being trivial that even though it had, in one
> form or another, been used to explain a lack of change for over 2500
> years, selection-type explanations had not been used to explain change
> until Darwin suggested it...."
>
> And what Darwin meant with "selection-type explanations " was the
> Aristotle quote: result of accident. Which was interpreted as such by
> though differed from Darwin, their concept was different yet he used
> the same terminology, this is where the confusion comes in.
>
> What is the concept that Wilkins has with what Darwin suggested?
> Wilkins concept seems to be volitional , non-chance but then he no
> longer is interpreting Darwin, he must label his theories: The Wilkins
> theory of transformation. Dawkins says that " .... natural selection
> is the exact opposite of chance...." Which wasn't the interpretation
> of Darwin by Burroughs, Osborn, Waagen and Kingsley. Dawkins must
> formulate his own theories and label his theories: The Dawkins theory
> of transformation. We are dealing with thousands of different
> theories , all of the them using the same terms but having different
> concepts.
When you understand a concept, you can express it in a number of
different ways. Also, we keep learning, and the theory keeps growing.
Words change meaning in time, yet we do not refer to So-and-so's
"widget" or Whathisname's "widget". If there is a chance of
confusion, a good writer will make clear what he means; in philosophy
or science they will often define a few key words to avoid ambiguity.
Fortunately, science is not crippled your confusion with ordinary
language.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Oct 19, 1:34 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
> > > etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs , Darwin's andAristotle
> > > had. Which demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single
> > > true meaning.
> > you mean because someone had an idea...90 years ago...that we can't
> > tell anything about that idea?
>
> The ideas and the terminology (evolution, selection) back then and the
> different idea today using the same terminology(evolution ,
> selection) must indicated. Let us contrast Dennett with Osborn,
> Waagen:
>
> === Osborn on Waagen ===
> New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
> "....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
> Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
> process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
> overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
> and place in order line after line of animals in their true
> evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
> the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
> Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."
>
> "...How can natural selection do this without intelligence? It does
> not consciously seek out these rationales, but when it stumbles on
> them, the brute requirements of replication ensure that it
> "recognizes" their value. The illusion of intelligence is created
> because of our limited perspective on the process; evolution may well
> have tried all the "stupid moves" in addition to the "smart moves",
> but the stupid moves, being failures, disappeared from view. All we
> see is the unbroken string of triumphs. Endnote 6 When we set
> ourselves the task of explaining why those were the triumphs, we
> uncover the reasons for things--the reasons already "acknowledged" by
> the relative success of organisms endowed with those things. ..."
>
> Osborn:
> "....not ... by chance as Darwin ... supposed, but through a continues
> and well ordered process..."
> A well ordered process is what use to indicate volition. But Dennett
> tells us :
> "....How can natural selection do this without intelligence?..."
>
> Both Osborn and Dennette used "natural selection" but how should we
> interpret the concept they had with it?
Gosh. Dennet immediately goes on to say "It does not consciously seek
out these rationales, but when it stumbles on them, the brute
requirements of replication ensure that it "recognizes" their value.
The illusion of intelligence is created because of our limited
perspective on the process; evolution may well have tried all the
"stupid moves" in addition to the "smart moves", but the stupid moves,
being failures, disappeared from view. All we
see is the unbroken string of triumphs."
Right there in your own quote. In case you don't get it, he explains
why it only *seems to be intelligence, but isn't. How can we explain
something to you when you can't understand simple explanations which
you yourself selected (with, I might add, no appearance of
intelligence)?
Kermit
Kermit
I would have said that until you are willing to read what people say,
it is not even information when we post to you. See how differently
the same concept can be expressed?
Kermit
wf3h
it's been defined that's why it can be tested. that's why there are
published papers on it
i can't help you since you live in a 3rd century mentality. nothing i
can saw will help you. it's like trying to explain quantum physics to
someone who doesn't know what an atom is
wf3h
> In article
> <93ad3957-b2f5-4cc2-8c10-0b0343782...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 2:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Latest update to my ongoing tautology article
> > > athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
> > > == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> > > (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
>
> > nobody cares what aristotle said.
>
> Why not? I do...
'tis true i do too. i mean in this context, where the creationist
grasps at straws to pollute the ideas of aristotle, darwin and whoever
else happens to come down the path.
backspace
> Gosh. Dennet immediately goes on to say "It does not consciously seek
> out these rationales, but when it stumbles on them, the brute
> requirements of replication ensure that it "recognizes" their value.
> The illusion of intelligence is created because of our limited
> perspective on the process; evolution may well have tried all the
> "stupid moves" in addition to the "smart moves", but the stupid moves,
> being failures, disappeared from view. All we
> see is the unbroken string of triumphs."
> Right there in your own quote. In case you don't get it, he explains
> why it only *seems to be intelligence, but isn't.
Where has Dennette defined what a Natural selection is ? Jerry Fodor
wrote: What then is the intended meaning of a natural selection.
backspace
> They don't say much about it - it is understood by sane people that
> when it's natural selection, it is without intent, and when it is
> human selection it is purposeful.
And there being no intent is a way of saying: What will be, will be.
This was the Aristotelian , Epicurian, Empedoclian view, reformulated
by DArwin as natural selection, a term he lifted from Patrick
Matthews.
The fallacy is to say: What happens , happens(natural selection or
theory of evolution) and then therefore a monkey gave birth to a
human, which doesn't follow logically.
Note carefully what DArwin wrote: Theory of evolution
"...This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man,
is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the
preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
number which varied in an opposite manner. That many species have been
evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a
doubt. ..."
"..That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner,
there can hardly be a doubt..."
Preceding this sentence is a tautology: What happens, happens and
therefore there was gradual
transitions, which doesn't follow logically.
Darwin merely is adhocly using "selection" and "evolution" to
reformulate Aristotle. But back in Aristotles days they didn't say
"selectus" because selectus is a decision and the Atomists back then
believed we were the result of accident.
wf3h
> On Oct 19, 5:24 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They don't say much about it - it is understood by sane people that
> > when it's natural selection, it is without intent, and when it is
> > human selection it is purposeful.
>
> And there being no intent is a way of saying: What will be, will be.
> This was the Aristotelian , Epicurian, Empedoclian view, reformulated
> by DArwin as natural selection, a term he lifted from Patrick
> Matthews.
>
> The fallacy is to say: What happens , happens(natural selection or
> theory of evolution) and then therefore a monkey gave birth to a
> human, which doesn't follow logically.
notice what the idiot leaves out: the fact that sex plays a role. it's
central to darwin's argument. the creationist, unable to fathom the
fact that this is a testable idea, simply ignores it.
no wonder creationism is a dead idea except with schoolboards
> Darwin merely is adhocly using "selection" and "evolution" to
> reformulate Aristotle. But back in Aristotles days they didn't say
> "selectus" because selectus is a decision and the Atomists back then
> believed we were the result of accident.
ever hear of sex?
no. you're a fundamentalist. and fundies generally oppose sex
backspace
> > And there being no intent is a way of saying: What will be, will be.
> > This was the Aristotelian , Epicurian, Empedoclian view, reformulated
> > by DArwin as natural selection, a term he lifted from Patrick
> > Matthews.
> > The fallacy is to say: What happens , happens(natural selection or
> > theory of evolution) and then therefore a monkey gave birth to a
> > human, which doesn't follow logically.
http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/#online
Sections 19 and 20 of Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery", in
which he discusses "conventionalist stratagems" to rescue a theory
from falsification. Popper writes, "Whenever the `classical' system of
the day is threatened by the results of new experiments which might be
interpreted as falsifications . . . the system will appear unshaken to
the conventionalist."
Popper goes on to explain the stratagems the conventionalist will use
to deal with the inconsistencies that have arisen between the
predictions of the theory and the results of experiments:
1. Blame our inadequate mastery of the system.
2. Suggest the ad hoc adoption of auxiliary hypotheses.
3. Suggest corrections to measuring instruments.
4. Modify definitions used in the theory.
5. Adopt a skeptical attitude of the observer whose observations
threaten the system by excluding his observations from science because
(a) they are insufficiently supported; (b) they are unscientific; (c)
they are not objective.
6. Call the experimenter a liar.
What is taking place is that Darwins concept as interpreted by Osborn,
Burroughs, Kingsley and Waagen is being redefined , but the same terms
are retained leading to huge confusion as to what we are talking
about. Because Aristotle's what happens , happens notion reformulated
and rebranded as
theory of evolution can' be falsified. Nr.4 says that the
conventionalist modifies definitions used.
Robert Camp
> On Oct 19, 1:34 am, Padmar Mushkin <x...@y.z> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:49:33 -0400, "Steven L."
>>
>> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Here is Wilkins ongoing articles on the tautology issue:
> http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/09/06/untitled-4tautology-7-conclusions/
> and my notes on him : http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnWilkins
>
> "...Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use
> of the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
> changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
> implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
> problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
> tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
> *is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
> connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
> unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
> biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
> thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
> result, it was retained. That's selection in biology. ..."
>
> Note:
> "...Because it achieved that result, it was retained. That's selection
> in biology...."
>
> "Achieved that result" and "was retained" says the same thing twice,
> making what Wilkins wrote irrefutable and thus fallacious.
No, they do not say the same thing. They are statements of act and
consequence: the achievement of a particular condition engendered a
particular outcome. Additionally, your removal of the word "Because"
changes the thrust of those statements. With that word retained, it is
obvious that the argument presumes an (unstated for brevity and
readability) oppositional circumstance wherein non-achievement results
in non-retention. Thus, for anyone reading for comprehension, there is
a complete set of ideas presenting an if/then mechanism producing
opposing outcomes. There is no tautology, and there is no fallacy.
Whatever mania it is that causes you to believe that the paraphrasing
you so often propose does not strip the arguments of meaning is
unfortunate. But it is your problem alone. These scenarios rely
entirely upon the explanatory power of the details involved, and are
simply not reducible to your ridiculous "something happened, therefore
something happened" strawmen.
You really *must* endeavor to be more rigorous in your use and
understanding of language.
RLC
Iain
> Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> mountain then non-volitional.
For the millionth time(on both counts)
1) Although one case involves volition and the other does not, that
does not mean there is a second meaning of the word 'selection'. They
are simply two different scenarios involving selection, only one of
which involves volition. That is not the same as saying the word
'selection' itself implies volition.
2) So what? You provide two scenarios only one of which involves
volition. So what?
>What does the various authors today mean
> with "selection" : volition or non-volition?
In the case of evolution ... non volition.
Which raises the almightily important question.....why the bubbafuck
do you continually introduce the red herring of volition? The only
person to suggest or allude to volition is you.
Nobody else.
You.
Not the word 'selection'.
You, and you alone.
--Iain
Iain
> On Oct 19, 5:24 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And there being no intent is a way of saying: What will be, will be.
No, it isn't. Therefore no to your whole general mishmash of an
argument.
--Iain
Iain
> Iain wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 7:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Is there a point in any of the above?
>
> > --Iain
>
> Only if one is possessed of (by?) a monomania about tautology as is the OP.
Not even then.
--Iain
wf3h
> On Oct 19, 7:13 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/#online
> Sections 19 and 20 of Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery", in
> which he discusses "conventionalist stratagems" to rescue a theory
> from falsification. Popper writes, "Whenever the `classical' system of
> the day is threatened by the results of new experiments which might be
> interpreted as falsifications . . . the system will appear unshaken to
> the conventionalist."
>
i DO wish you'd try to follow up on your own argument. NOW you're
moving the goalposts and bringing in popper. have you given up and
admitted you're wrong about evolution being a 'tautology', and are
now force to wave the white flag of surrender by changing the topic?
> Popper goes on to explain the stratagems the conventionalist will use
> to deal with the inconsistencies that have arisen between the
> predictions of the theory and the results of experiments:
perhaps you forgot that creationism WAS the reigning paradigm before
evolution. so evolution IS the REVOLUTION and creationism is the
'conventionalist' view.
>
> 1. Blame our inadequate mastery of the system.
IOW 'god did it but we don't know how'
> 2. Suggest the ad hoc adoption of auxiliary hypotheses.
IOW the bible is right so creationism must be right
> 3. Suggest corrections to measuring instruments.
meaningless in this context
> 4. Modify definitions used in the theory.
'a day is as a thousand years...'
> 5. Adopt a skeptical attitude of the observer whose observations
> threaten the system by excluding his observations from science
'evolution is just as much a faith belief as creationism'.
so far you've defined CREATIONISM EXACTLY. its dodges, goalpost
moving, lies, prevarications and distortions are pretty well summed up
by popper
>
> What is taking place is that Darwins concept as interpreted by Osborn,
> Burroughs, Kingsley and Waagen is being redefined , but the same terms
> are retained leading to huge confusion as to what we are talking
> about. Because Aristotle's what happens , happens notion reformulated
> and rebranded as
> theory of evolution can' be falsified. Nr.4 says that the
> conventionalist modifies definitions used.
if it's being 'redefined' (sic) only YOU seem to see that. those of us
who are scientists and can be objective see a well defined concept and
theory that is subject to validation....EVOLUTION
creationism? your yourself just listed the reasons it's a failure.
and you did so even by moving the goalposts and changing the subject
matter
any OTHER distortions you want to toss in?
backspace
> On Oct 19, 10:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> > there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> > mountain then non-volitional.
>
> For the millionth time(on both counts)
> 1) Although one case involves volition and the other does not, that
> does not mean there is a second meaning of the word 'selection'. They
> are simply two different scenarios involving selection, only one of
> which involves volition. That is not the same as saying the word
> 'selection' itself implies volition.
Words themselves can't imply anything only volitional beings can imply
something. A volitional being uses words to communicate his concept.
"selection" like "random" can be used in the volitional or non-
volitional sense. See http://bit.ly/19lJrY.
If you pick up a piece of paper with a single word "selection" written
on it, what would it imply? Without knowing who wrote it, nothing. Is
called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
wf3h
> On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 10:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> > > there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> > > mountain then non-volitional.
>
> > For the millionth time(on both counts)
> > 1) Although one case involves volition and the other does not, that
> > does not mean there is a second meaning of the word 'selection'. They
> > are simply two different scenarios involving selection, only one of
> > which involves volition. That is not the same as saying the word
> > 'selection' itself implies volition.
>
> Words themselves can't imply anything only volitional beings can imply
> something. A volitional being uses words to communicate his concept.
> "selection" like "random" can be used in the volitional or non-
>
> If you pick up a piece of paper with a single word "selection" written
> on it, what would it imply? Without knowing who wrote it, nothing. Is
> calledhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
you ever get the impression he spends alot of time alone in bathrooms
with pictures of naked ladies?
backspace
> > Note:
> > "...Because it achieved that result, it was retained. That's selection
> > in biology...."
> > "Achieved that result" and "was retained" says the same thing twice,
> > making what Wilkins wrote irrefutable and thus fallacious.
> No, they do not say the same thing. They are statements of act and
> consequence: the achievement of a particular condition engendered a
> particular outcome. Additionally, your removal of the word "Because"
> changes the thrust of those statements. With that word retained, it is
> obvious that the argument presumes an (unstated for brevity and
> readability) oppositional circumstance wherein non-achievement results
> in non-retention.
=== rephrase ===
If the goal was achieved it was retained, if it wasn't achieved it
wasn't retained. The irony is you have more clearly formulated the
tautology. Those that worked better were retained implies that those
that didn't work better weren't retained, but this doesn't explain the
actual reason something was retained or rejected. Wilkins entire
paragraph amounts to that if an animal is in existence today it was
"retained" and those dinosaurs who are dead weren't retained. This is
essentially the same thing DArwin wrote (paraphrased and
reformulated): The dinosaurs died because there were "less improved".
Obviously the dinosaurs were "less improved" or they wouldn't be dead
now would they.
Gould then took this tautology and reformulated it as: The geological
record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone
groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant
groups as life's legacy. :S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated
equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
* How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that
the groups disappeared?
* How was their disapearability measured except by noting that they
were "extinction-prone"?
wf3h
> === rephrase ===
> If the goal was achieved it was retained, if it wasn't achieved it
> wasn't retained. The irony is you have more clearly formulated the
> tautology.
you don't know what a tautology is. you haven't defined why evolution
is a tautology. you haven't defined why an idea that has multiple
mechanisms is a 'tautology' (sic)
in short, your argument is meaningless
Those that worked better were retained implies that those
> that didn't work better weren't retained,
well...no. compare natural selection to genetic drift. since there are
multiple mechanisms of evolution, evolution by natural selection CANT
be a 'tautology'.
creationism? it's not even wrong enough to BE a tautology
you dont know what the word means
Iain
> On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 10:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> > > there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> > > mountain then non-volitional.
>
> > For the millionth time(on both counts)
> > 1) Although one case involves volition and the other does not, that
> > does not mean there is a second meaning of the word 'selection'. They
> > are simply two different scenarios involving selection, only one of
> > which involves volition. That is not the same as saying the word
> > 'selection' itself implies volition.
>
> Words themselves can't imply anything
Rubbish, and an evasion also.
Each time somebody here uses the phrase 'natural selection', your
quibble is that ' "selection" implies intent'.
It does not. In whatever respect you say " 'selection' implies intent
", you are wrong.
--Iain
Iain
We have already defined natural selection to you multiple times, and
each time, you respond with a landslide of non-sequiturs and red
herrings, and an air of overconfidence in your own intellectual
rigour.
Why should we expect anything different next time around?
--Iain
Robert Camp
> On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Note:
>>> "...Because it achieved that result, it was retained. That's selection
>>> in biology...."
>
>>> "Achieved that result" and "was retained" says the same thing twice,
>>> making what Wilkins wrote irrefutable and thus fallacious.
>
>> No, they do not say the same thing. They are statements of act and
>> consequence: the achievement of a particular condition engendered a
>> particular outcome. Additionally, your removal of the word "Because"
>> changes the thrust of those statements. With that word retained, it is
>> obvious that the argument presumes an (unstated for brevity and
>> readability) oppositional circumstance wherein non-achievement results
>> in non-retention.
>
> === rephrase ==
> If the goal was achieved it was retained, if it wasn't achieved it
> wasn't retained. The irony is you have more clearly formulated the
> tautology. Those that worked better were retained implies that those
> that didn't work better weren't retained, but this doesn't explain the
> actual reason something was retained or rejected.
If you take a look back at the subject here, i.e., Wilkins' words that
*you* pasted, you'll see that the idea was not to "explain the actual
reason something was retained or rejected," it was to elucidate the use
of goal-oriented language in biology.
If you would stop with the foolish, self-serving paraphrasing you might
be better able to follow the arc of the discussion. Also, your
reference to irony would be more pertinent, or at least more
entertaining, if it also included some relevance to the point under
discussion. In other words, stop trying to rephrase everything to suit
your arguments, and start paying attention.
> Wilkins entire paragraph amounts to that if an animal is in existence
> today it was
> "retained" and those dinosaurs who are dead weren't retained.
What you seem to have great difficulty understanding is that there are
different scales of explanation. You keep offering your ridiculous
"rephrases" with no apparent recognition that you have removed
information and nuance required for the kind of explanation originally
intended - then you complain that your rephrase no longer
satisfactorily explains anything. Do you truly not realize your own
clumsiness here?
> This is
> essentially the same thing DArwin wrote (paraphrased and
> reformulated): The dinosaurs died because there were "less improved".
>
> Obviously the dinosaurs were "less improved" or they wouldn't be dead
> now would they.
No, it is not obvious, because implicit in "less improved" is all of
the research context - heredity, adaptive characteristics,
environmental constraints - that provides the explanatory framework.
Dishonestly offering just your silly "rephrase" doesn't change the fact
that Darwin included all of this. And pretending that there is nothing
there but the naked words is a little like waking up every morning with
no frame of reference, no backstory to give your day context. Neither
language, nor life, works that way.
> Gould then took this tautology and reformulated it as: The geological
> record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone
> groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant
> groups as life's legacy. :S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated
> equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
>
> * How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that
> the groups disappeared?
Probably the same way 'number of deaths' is quantified, by counting the
number of dead. Would you dispute that the percentage of those with a
particular disease that dies is reasonably (if callously) referred to
as more death-prone under that particular set of circumstances?
> * How was their disapearability measured except by noting that they
> were "extinction-prone"?
It's difficult to respond to someone who claims divine linguistic
inspiration while offering a sentence with the word "disapearability"
in it.
RLC
Garamond Lethe
_Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, chapter 2.
David Hare-Scott
And here, in case anybody missed the technique, you repeat the same
paraphrasing as Robert pointed out is a major weakness in your expression.
How purblind can you be that you casually snip out his criticism as if it
didn't exist and then commit that same stupid error.
So I shall restore his good advice: You really *must* endeavor to be more
rigorous in your use and understanding of language.
David
backspace
You are misstating me. I said that for last 5850 years "selectus" was
used in 99% of cases to indicate somebody or something(pantheist
rocks) making a decision. With the advent of pragmatics the last 30
years it became clear that any word can be used in either volition,
non-volition sense. The deceit is that the last 150 years "selection"
was used but nobody knew what was meant by this. The confusion is so
severe that the YEC apologetics movement went around attacking
evolution , but they were like a boxer hitting in the air, with the
deceitful university professors laughing at them because they never
defined what they meant with "evolution" , selection etc : What was
the mechanism. I am not making the same mistake, by asking you to
spell out what you mean: Did anybody have intent with your usage of
selection, if not then why are using the word? Rather say what you
mean: What will be, will be and therefore a monkey gave birth to a
human.
You certainly can use "selection" in the non-volition sense but this
would be just as strange as saying " I hate you my love" to your
wife , where she now has to decode your pragmatics that you actually
mean you love her. I would indicate a form of mental illness, if not
madness.
It is a great way solve YEC books on why "evolution is wrong" .
Evolution what?
backspace
> You certainly can use "selection" in the non-volition sense but this
> would be just as strange as saying " I hate you my love" to your
> wife , where she now has to decode your pragmatics that you actually
> mean you love her. I would indicate a form of mental illness, if not
> madness.
> It is a great way solve YEC books on why "evolution is wrong" .
> Evolution what?
Typo:
It is a great way to sell YEC books on why "evolution is wrong":
Evolution what, what exactly is wrong?
wf3h
> On Oct 20, 12:27 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It does not. In whatever respect you say " 'selection' implies intent
> > ", you are wrong.
>
> > --Iain
>
> You are misstating me. I said that for last 5850 years "selectus" was
> used in 99% of cases to indicate somebody or something(pantheist
> rocks) making a decision. With the advent of pragmatics the last 30
> years it became clear that any word can be used in either volition,
> non-volition sense. The deceit is that the last 150 years "selection"
> was used but nobody knew what was meant by this.
except, of course, anyone who read about evolution. we seem to have
caught on.
you yourself admit you're confusion even vs other creationists.
The confusion is so
> severe that the YEC apologetics movement went around attacking
> evolution , but they were like a boxer hitting in the air, with the
> deceitful university professors laughing at them because they never
> defined what they meant with "evolution" , selection etc : What was
> the mechanism.
well when you have some creationists saying the earth is 4.5B yrs old
and others saying it's 6000, confusion about 'selection' is the least
of your worries.
Iain
> On Oct 20, 12:27 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 8:19 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 8:56 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 19, 10:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If Peter put it
> > > > > there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a storm hit a
> > > > > mountain then non-volitional.
>
> > > > For the millionth time(on both counts)
> > > > 1) Although one case involves volition and the other does not, that
> > > > does not mean there is a second meaning of the word 'selection'. They
> > > > are simply two different scenarios involving selection, only one of
> > > > which involves volition. That is not the same as saying the word
> > > > 'selection' itself implies volition.
>
> > > Words themselves can't imply anything
>
> > Rubbish, and an evasion also.
>
> > Each time somebody here uses the phrase 'natural selection', your
> > quibble is that ' "selection" implies intent'.
>
> > It does not. In whatever respect you say " 'selection' implies intent
> > ", you are wrong.
>
> > --Iain
>
> You are misstating me. I said that for last 5850 years "selectus" was
> used in 99% of cases to indicate somebody or something(pantheist
> rocks) making a decision.
I seriously, seriously, doubt that the Latin word 'selectus' existed
5850 years ago. The Latin language did not exist. Why does every item
on your agenda involve some cock-eyed bewildering falsehood?
> With the advent of pragmatics the last 30
> years it became clear that any word can be used in either volition,
> non-volition sense.
There are not two senses to the word, just two different sets of
circumstances in which selection can occur.
The farmer's brain is a physical structure which selects, non-
randomly, which cattle breed.
The physical environment is a physical structure which selects, non-
randomly, which cattle breed.
Although only one of these involves volition, they both involve the
same meaning of 'select'.
> The deceit is that the last 150 years "selection"
> was used but nobody knew what was meant by this.
Well yes they did because Darwin went to great lengths to explain. And
succeeded.
--Iain
John Wilkins
<6b658c9a-4094-4e31...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 4:47�pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 2:48�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Latest update to my ongoing tautology article
> > > athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
> >
> > > == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> > > (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
> >
> > nobody cares what aristotle said.
> [snip]
>
> Aristotle was a moron.
>
You're that smart?
Mitchell Coffey
>
> Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 4:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 18, 2:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Latest update to my ongoing tautology article
> > > > athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
> > > > == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> > > > (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
>
> > > nobody cares what aristotle said.
> > [snip]
>
> > Aristotle was a moron.
>
> You're that smart?
Just so. Here, hand me that wine glass...
Mitchell
backspace
non-random means directed, motive, will volition: Who did the
directing?
Inez
No it doesn't. Weighted dice are non-random, yet have no volition.
backspace
> > non-random means directed, motive, will volition: Who did the
> > directing?-
>
> No it doesn't. Weighted dice are non-random, yet have no volition.
Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
Iain
> On Oct 20, 4:07 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> non-random means directed, motive, will volition
No.
--Iain
Iain
No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
"will volition".
Evolution is a non-random, non-voluntary process.
--Iain
backspace
> On Oct 20, 8:20 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 9:57 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition: Who did the
> > > > directing?-
>
> > > No it doesn't. Weighted dice are non-random, yet have no volition.
>
> > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
>
> No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
> "will volition".
Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?
Iain
I meant what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.
--Iain
heekster
<m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 4:47�pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2:48�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Latest update to my ongoing tautology article athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>>
>> > == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
>> > (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
>>
>> nobody cares what aristotle said.
>[snip]
>
>Aristotle was a moron.
>
>Mitchell Coffey
My, isn't that special.
Garamond Lethe
Correct, directed is not a synonym for volition.
A creek bed directs water.
Water in a creek does not have volition, nor does the creek bed.
You have a problem with modern hydrology as well as evolution, right?
(There's also the small difficulty that we don't usually find
past-tense verbs as synonyms for nouns.)
William Morse
Kermit
> On Oct 19, 5:34 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gosh. Dennet immediately goes on to say "It does not consciously seek
> > out these rationales, but when it stumbles on them, the brute
> > requirements of replication ensure that it "recognizes" their value.
> > The illusion of intelligence is created because of our limited
> > perspective on the process; evolution may well have tried all the
> > "stupid moves" in addition to the "smart moves", but the stupid moves,
> > being failures, disappeared from view. All we
> > see is the unbroken string of triumphs."
> > Right there in your own quote. In case you don't get it, he explains
> > why it only *seems to be intelligence, but isn't.
>
> wrote: What then is the intended meaning of a natural selection.
Difficult as it is to believe, sane people do not normally define
everything they say in every conversation.
And what would be the point in doing so here? You have affirmed over
and again that you will ignore definitions, claim that words or
phrases can only be defined in one way, insist that people long dead
are the sole arbiters of a word's meaning now, conflate descriptions
of a theory with definitions, and then pretend to rephrase people's
words in a thoroughly incompetent or dishonest manner - only to argue
badly against *that.
Just sayin'.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Oct 19, 5:24 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They don't say much about it - it is understood by sane people that
> > when it's natural selection, it is without intent, and when it is
> > human selection it is purposeful.
>
> And there being no intent is a way of saying: What will be, will be.
Are you truly idiotic enough to believe that anyone will accept this?
"What will be, will be" makes no mention of intent or no intent, nor
which kind of selection is associated with each.
Are you claiming that you cannot differentiate between humans and the
rest of nature?
Aren't you always whining about he "intent" implied by common language
usage? You can't possibly do that if you cannot distinguish between
the two.
You can claim that my claim is wrong (good luck with that), but your
response is only evidence that you cannot use simple English, and your
complaints about its usage are vacuous.
> This was the Aristotelian , Epicurian, Empedoclian view, reformulated
> by DArwin as natural selection, a term he lifted from Patrick
> Matthews.
Knowledge grows, even if you never learn. Those of us with a modicum
of education have learned much from those who came before us, and some
of us continue to add to it throughout life.
Darwin contributed significantly to science and human knowledge.
Nobody thinks his ideas were born of a vacuum, but his ideas were
largely new.
>
> The fallacy is to say: What happens , happens
Correct, for it has nothing to do with anything I or the other
regulars have said here, nor does it have anything to do with current
evolutionary science, nor anything Darwin has said.
It does, however, remind me of a song that Doris Day used to sing -
perhaps you were thinking of her, instead?
> (natural selection or
> theory of evolution) and then therefore a monkey gave birth to a
> human, which doesn't follow logically.
Science doesn't derive it's theories through pure logic; logic is
simply one tool used in coming up with explanations for observed data,
and testing those explanations.
Evolutionary science also doesn't claim that a monkey gave birth to a
human. Typically the difference between you and your parents are no
less than the average difference between generations in vertebrates
evolving into a very different species - for instance, our remote
monkey-like ancestor and us.
>
> Note carefully what DArwin wrote: Theory of evolution
> "...This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man,
> is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the
> preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> number which varied in an opposite manner. That many species have been
> evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a
> doubt. ..."
Very elegantly put. Quite clear, too.
>
> "..That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner,
> there can hardly be a doubt..."
>
> Preceding this sentence is a tautology: What happens, happens
But that's not what he said. this says nothing about
"the preservation of a large number of individuals", or
the fact that they always vary in numerous traits,
nor that they varied in ways which affected the reproductive success
of the many individuals involved,
with some more likely to survive and reproduce,
and others *less likely to survive and reproduce.
> and
> therefore there was gradual
> transitions, which doesn't follow logically.
Correct, because you replaced the various premises with pablum.
>
> Darwin merely is adhocly using "selection" and "evolution" to
> reformulate Aristotle.
No, he's not. He is explaining how and why species change gradually
over time, into one or more very different species (unless they go
extinct). He is not reformulating Aristotle.
> But back in Aristotles days they didn't say
> "selectus" because selectus is a decision and the Atomists back then
> believed we were the result of accident.
What do they have to do with current science? Anyway, I am not going
to read them now, but I will go on the working assumption that you
haven't the foggiest clue what they actually said in their surviving
texts. You can't read Darwin or posts on this newsgroup; it would be
foolish to assume that you understood Aristotle.
Kermit
backspace
> > > > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
> > > No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
> > > "will volition".
>
> > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?
> I meant what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.
But only you know what you meant. My usage of directed, volition,
selected, decision,will and goal are all synonymous. Perhaps in your
language universe they are not, this is where the problem lies,
something AIG and ICR fails to understand. They are doing more damage
to the mental health of the world then the atheists. Paul had the
least problems with the non-believers, it was always those claiming to
be on God's side causing the damage.
You can't be born-again or give your heart to God, or pray if you are
insane. God expects you be in your sane mind, something which society
is rapidly losing.
backspace
wrote:
> >> No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
> >> "will volition".
>
> > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?
>
> Correct, directed is not a synonym for volition.
>
> A creek bed directs water.
>
> Water in a creek does not have volition, nor does the creek bed.
True because directed can be used in both volitional and non-
volitional sense depending on the context: patterns or designs. The
creek had no intent, but that depends whether you are a pantheist or
not. It all depends, some actually believe the creek would be
"alive" , from just the sentence alone it isn't possible whether
directed was used in the pattern or design sense. We must be told who
said so.
Now who said: A creek bed directs water?
Who said: John directed the person towards his goal?
> You have a problem with modern hydrology as well as evolution, right?
Until you define evolution you are not even wrong.
backspace
Do you mean that "non-random" can't be used to communicate a
volitional intent by a user? Any word can be used to communicate any
intent, any concept. But then again if you ultimately believe your
thoughts are just banging atoms then ultimately nothing you say, hear
or do could have any intent. Thus your religious beliefs can't be
separated from what you say, something the ID crowd , many Xtians
actually do over at uncommondescent.com denying their faith refusing
the take the consequences: Loose your job , be destitute, cast out ,
the same the early Xtians had to go through. Thus the atheists are
holding them in contempt because they refuse to die like the early
Xtians did, what then is their faith really worth. If it isn't worth
dying for then why are they bothering the atheists with it, lying
about their intentions etc....
Garamond Lethe
> On Oct 21, 5:47 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >> No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
>> >> "will volition".
>>
>> > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?
>>
>> Correct, directed is not a synonym for volition.
>>
>> A creek bed directs water.
>>
>> Water in a creek does not have volition, nor does the creek bed.
>
> True because directed can be used in both volitional and non-
> volitional sense depending on the context: patterns or designs.
As can "selection".
> The
> creek had no intent, but that depends whether you are a pantheist or
> not. It all depends, some actually believe the creek would be
> "alive" , from just the sentence alone it isn't possible whether
> directed was used in the pattern or design sense. We must be told who
> said so.
>
> Now who said: A creek bed directs water?
I believe I did.
> Who said: John directed the person towards his goal?
I think you did.
>
>> You have a problem with modern hydrology as well as evolution, right?
> Until you define evolution you are not even wrong.
Oh, are we back to this again? You really have a very short memory.
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)), where $N$ is the actual number of individuals.
That's evolution defined. Again. Shall I type in the citation again?
Iain
> On Oct 20, 11:58 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
> > > > No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
> > > > "will volition".
>
> > > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?
> > I meant what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> But only you know what you meant. My usage of directed, volition,
> selected, decision,will and goal are all synonymous.
Then yours is a unique idiolect which should not be used in public.
> Perhaps in your
> language universe they are not, this is where the problem lies,
> something AIG and ICR fails to understand. They are doing more damage
> to the mental health of the world then the atheists.
But you are the one with the minority idiolect.
The confusion is all your doing.
An unmanned sieve-like structure, which only lets a certian size of
object pass through it, is an example of non-random, non-voluntary
selection.
So now you know the language. So you can now atop whining about it.
> Paul had the
> least problems with the non-believers, it was always those claiming to
> be on God's side causing the damage.
> You can't be born-again or give your heart to God, or pray if you are
> insane. God expects you be in your sane mind, something which society
> is rapidly losing.
This is too funny.
--Iain
backspace
wrote:
> 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)), where $N$ is the actual number of individuals.
> That's evolution defined. Again. Shall I type in the citation again?
Darwin didn't know about genes, why are you using his word?
Iain
> On Oct 20, 10:21 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 7:46 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 4:07 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition
>
> > No.
>
> Do you mean that "non-random" can't be used to communicate a
> volitional intent by a user?
"Random" has nothing to do with volition\non-volition, except that
volition just happens to be one of many non-random processes in the
universe.
Choice.
Weighted dice.
The course of a river downstream.
All three are non-random.
> Any word can be used to communicate any
> intent, any concept.
Irrelevant, as I am using words properly and as such there is no need
whatsoever to raise the topic of linguistic ambiguity. This is your
own, personal monomania.
> But then again if you ultimately believe your
> thoughts are just banging atoms then ultimately nothing you say, hear
> or do could have any intent.
Non sequitur, garbage follows.
We can play it your way and it wouldn't make any difference.
The farmer's soul selects cattle non-randomly.
The environment selects cattle non-randomly.
Both are non-random(in the same sense). Both are selection(in the same
sense).
Only one is volition, but volition is not the only non-random process
possible.
--Iain
Garamond Lethe
And that's an excellent reason for no longer using Darwin's definition.
And I don't.
> why are you using his word?
Convenience.
So, no comment on the actual definition then?
wf3h
Paul had the
> least problems with the non-believers, it was always those claiming to
> be on God's side causing the damage.
as is the case today
>
> You can't be born-again or give your heart to God, or pray if you are
> insane. God expects you be in your sane mind, something which society
> is rapidly losing.
and you're the first victim
Burkhard
its referent - which also means we can learn about an object without
changing the word every time we learn something new. I know more about
my father now than when I was 14, but I have referred to him all through
that time with the same word. That is how language works.
wf3h
If it isn't worth
> dying for then why are they bothering the atheists with it, lying
> about their intentions etc....
a straightforward answer. compare 2 superstitions: astrology and
creationism.
both equally false. both equally useless.
but the folks in the astrology business have the good sense to keep
their ignorance confined to their own community and are not trying to
destroy the scientific community by asserting their superstition is
science, NOR are they trying to wreck the 1st amendment to the US
constitution by asserting their superstition should be taught in
public schools
the creationists, equally ignorant, don't have that common sense
backspace
I am stating an hypothesis. I invite you, in your reading, to see
evidences of it in popular scientific reporting.
It is not stated until the fifth paragraph. The first four will take
you no more than two minutes to get to it, and that's if you move your
lips; you can get probably get to it in more than one.
I have been told all my life that there is such a thing as theistic
evolution, the concept that evolution is a process willed and directed
by divine intelligence. Theistic evolution is not the oxymoron of
evolution; the oxymoron, which we will get to, is a favorite tool of
atheistic evolutionists.
I wasn't enough trained in the sciences to defend theistic evolution,
and besides, in my benighted Biblicism, didn't need it as an
explanation of first things. I had limited patience, if any, with
those who thought a natural phenomenon like evolution (existing as a
process in time) conflicted with metaphysical realities that stand
beyond time and nature. One can believe in these realities or not, but
evolution one way or another has nothing to do with your belief. It
seemed to me that the arguments both for and against intelligent
design — the secular term some use when they want to say that God made
the world, without actually having to say it — all beg the question.
They begin with their conclusions.
Father Robert F. Capon was closer to the classic Christian position
when he wrote cheerfully, over thirty years ago, that God made Adam
out of dirt or monkeys or whatever.
Francis Collins helped me on theistic evolution in The Language of
God. He is an orthodox Christian — by definition one who believes in
creation —but one whose life-work, as co-discoverer of the "human
genome," is predicated on evolution as fact. He says clearly and
confidently that God is the creator of all things, and also that
evolution is one way things have developed into their present state.
What has bugged me for some time is the way atheist evolutionists are
too lazy to state their position on its own terms. Their use of
anthropomorphisms like choice and will falsifies their position. It
reminds me of the story going around in which the atheistic scientist
declares to God that he can make a man, and allows God to go first in
the demonstration. God scoops up a handful of dirt, and in a few
minutes produces a perfect human being. The scientist then scoops up
a handful of dirt, but God interrupts him: "Get your own dirt."
Evolution may be discerned by an atheist after it happens over an
unimaginable span of time, but it cannot be specifically predicted
before it happened the first time because there was no one to predict
it.
* "Natural selection" is an oxymoron. Do not say "natural
selection" when you mean "random outcome." In atheistic evolution,
nature has no mind or will; to treat it as such is pantheism, which is
a form of theism. Selection means "this, instead of that." It always
requires a selector. Selection is an intentional act, while an outcome
may or not be. Strictly speaking (and scientists should always speak
strictly), if it is selective, it cannot be natural; if it is natural,
it cannot be selective.
* Popular scientific reporting attributes will to nature with the
use of what atheistic evolutionists ought to reject as illegitimate
metaphors. An outrageous example is in the January 28 issue of Time,
in which romantic love is described as a "commitment device," and then
invents the reason for it out of nothing: "Natural selection has
built love to make us feel romantic." How a mindless process can build
anything, nor how it would know that it should, is never stated. On
the other hand, we are often told with smug superiority, though not in
this article, that it is particularly stupid to think that God did
it.
So get your own words, fellas. Our words mean something because we
have a reference for choice, will, design, and so on. You want our
words without our reference. That's cheating.
Kermit
> On Oct 20, 10:21 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 7:46 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 4:07 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition
>
> > No.
>
> Do you mean that "non-random" can't be used to communicate a
> volitional intent by a user?
Correct.
Mutations, for example, are random with respect to the organism's
needs, but they are not random in other ways. Not all conceivable
phenotypes (expressions of the mutations) are equally likely.
Mutations are disruptions of the normal chemical processes involved in
reproduction, and chemical, radiological, or other physical
explanations for why they happen. But none of these imply that they
are directed, let alone conscious.
To look at an example of human behavior, a person may have a pattern
of failure in his or her life: a woman whose first boyfriend or
husband is abusive is statistically more likely to get a second who is
abusive, than are women whose first boyfriend or husband is not
abusive. But that doesn't mean it is her *intent. It means she has a
pattern of behavior that makes that result more likely, or lives in a
subset of society where it is more likely than in the culture at
large, etc. It is not entirely accidental, but it is not deliberate.
Whether we are talking about minds or not, non-random is not
synonymous with volitional.
> Any word can be used to communicate any
> intent, any concept.
Only for you and Humpty Dumpty.
> But then again if you ultimately believe your
> thoughts are just banging atoms then ultimately nothing you say, hear
> or do could have any intent.
That doesn't follow. Why do you think this is true?
And even if the "logical" conclusion *were a consequence of the
antecedent, why would that mean it is unlikely to be the case?
> Thus your religious beliefs can't be
> separated from what you say, something the ID crowd , many Xtians
> actually do over at uncommondescent.com denying their faith refusing
> the take the consequences: Loose your job , be destitute, cast out ,
> the same the early Xtians had to go through. Thus the atheists are
> holding them in contempt because they refuse to die like the early
> Xtians did, what then is their faith really worth.
If I did hold the likes of you in contempt, it would be because you
refuse to learn, deny realty, live in a state of desperate self-
deception, and fight to prevent education in others.
> If it isn't worth
> dying for then why are they bothering the atheists with it, lying
> about their intentions etc....
You seem to hold your fellow Christians in contempt more than most of
the rest of us do. Are you so righteous that you can judge them?
Kermit
Kermit
What idiot gave you the idea that Darwin should limit our language?
Science is a process for collectively learning about how the world
works. We cannot learn if we restrict ourselves to the knowledge
earlier scientists used. You may as well say that Mendel didn't know
about natural selection.
Henry Ford didn't know about intermittent windshield wipers. Maybe I
should rip mine off?
Jesus didn't know about usenet; maybe you should stop posting.
Kermit
wf3h
>
> I have been told all my life that there is such a thing as theistic
> evolution, the concept that evolution is a process willed and directed
> by divine intelligence. Theistic evolution is not the oxymoron of
> evolution; the oxymoron, which we will get to, is a favorite tool of
> atheistic evolutionists.
>
> I wasn't enough trained in the sciences to defend theistic evolution,
> and besides, in my benighted Biblicism,
actually bibliolatry...creationists think the bible is the 4th person
of the trinity.
It
> seemed to me that the arguments both for and against intelligent
> design — the secular term some use when they want to say that God made
> the world, without actually having to say it — all beg the question.
> They begin with their conclusions.
ID is actually used by the creationists who believe in it.
>
> What has bugged me for some time is the way atheist evolutionists are
> too lazy to state their position on its own terms. Their use of
> anthropomorphisms like choice and will falsifies their position.
i guess the creationist is unaware that a word can have several
meanings...
>
> Evolution may be discerned by an atheist after it happens over an
> unimaginable span of time, but it cannot be specifically predicted
> before it happened the first time because there was no one to predict
> it.
predictions are not necessary in nature. nature happens without
predictions. you have confused 'man' with nature...not an uncommon
occurrence in creationism, where the reality of a material world is
denied in favor of some heretical, pantheistic view of the trinity
>
> * "Natural selection" is an oxymoron. Do not say "natural
> selection" when you mean "random outcome."
meaningless. 'natural selection' describes the process of evolution.
the outcome may be defined by natural selection, but your terminology
is absolutely meanningless
In atheistic evolution,
> nature has no mind or will; to treat it as such is pantheism, which is
> a form of theism.
selection does not always require a will. i realize that, in your 3rd
century mentality, you're unable to separate the world from the will,
but in science it happens all the time
Selection means "this, instead of that." It always
> requires a selector. Selection is an intentional act,
uh...no it's not and you haven't proven it is.
while an outcome
> may or not be. Strictly speaking (and scientists should always speak
> strictly), if it is selective, it cannot be natural; if it is natural,
> it cannot be selective.
more gibberish
> So get your own words, fellas. Our words mean something because we
> have a reference for choice, will, design, and so on. You want our
> words without our reference. That's cheating.
the word 'selection' wasn't invented by god. you want to steal the
dictionary, go ahead and try. george orwell figured you guys out a
long time ago, with your duplicitous use of language.
but, as historian daniel diner has pointed out, the fundamentalist
mentality has a crabbed and constricted vocabulary. it is bounded by
theism. it can not handle the modern world, which is why so many
fundies...like you...reject the modern world.
Kermit
> http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2808
You should probably clarify that this entire post is a quote form the
linked website. But then, clarity isn't your forte, is it?
I am responding to him, here.
>
> I am stating an hypothesis.
No, he's not. How would it be tested?
>I invite you, in your reading, to see
> evidences of it in popular scientific reporting.
>
> It is not stated until the fifth paragraph. The first four will take
> you no more than two minutes to get to it, and that's if you move your
> lips; you can get probably get to it in more than one.
>
> I have been told all my life that there is such a thing as theistic
> evolution, the concept that evolution is a process willed and directed
> by divine intelligence. Theistic evolution is not the oxymoron of
> evolution; the oxymoron, which we will get to, is a favorite tool of
> atheistic evolutionists.
>
> I wasn't enough trained in the sciences to defend theistic evolution,
I have never realized that theistic evolution was supported by any of
the sciences. I don't suppose he'll offer evidence for this...
> and besides, in my benighted Biblicism, didn't need it as an
> explanation of first things. I had limited patience, if any, with
> those who thought a natural phenomenon like evolution (existing as a
> process in time) conflicted with metaphysical realities that stand
> beyond time and nature.
Well, I suppose that's good. One shouldn't dabble in metaphysics if
one is inclined to think that reality isn't, well, real.
> One can believe in these realities or not, but
> evolution one way or another has nothing to do with your belief. It
> seemed to me that the arguments both for and against intelligent
> design — the secular term some use when they want to say that God made
> the world, without actually having to say it — all beg the question.
> They begin with their conclusions.
>
The following is his fifth paragraph. Is this the "hypothesis"?
> Father Robert F. Capon was closer to the classic Christian position
> when he wrote cheerfully, over thirty years ago, that God made Adam
> out of dirt or monkeys or whatever.
If there is a creator god, and he isn't a trickster, then the evidence
shows he/she used evolution to produce life.
>
> Francis Collins helped me on theistic evolution in The Language of
> God. He is an orthodox Christian — by definition one who believes in
> creation —but one whose life-work, as co-discoverer of the "human
> genome,"
Ummm... he didn't really "discover" the human genome (and there's no
reason to put *that in scare quotes. He headed the team which
sequenced it. It was good science, but we knew there was a genome.
<rolls eyes>
> is predicated on evolution as fact. He says clearly and
> confidently that God is the creator of all things,
A matter of religious faith, not a scientific hypothesis.
> and also that
> evolution is one way things have developed into their present state.
>
> What has bugged me for some time is the way atheist evolutionists are
> too lazy to state their position on its own terms. Their use of
> anthropomorphisms like choice and will falsifies their position.
It would help if he gave examples. I don't know that "will" is used in
talk about evolutionary processes. Certainly anthropomorphisms abound,
because that's built (there's one!) into the language itself.
> It
> reminds me of the story going around in which the atheistic scientist
> declares to God that he can make a man,
Curious thing to say. Atheists think there is no reason to believe in
gods, but an atheist talks to one?
> and allows God to go first in
> the demonstration. God scoops up a handful of dirt, and in a few
> minutes produces a perfect human being. The scientist then scoops up
> a handful of dirt, but God interrupts him: "Get your own dirt."
>
That, of course, would be cosmology, not evolution.
> Evolution may be discerned by an atheist after it happens over an
> unimaginable span of time,
Or over 20 years on an island, or ina subway, or in the culture dishes
in the lab's refrigerator.
> but it cannot be specifically predicted
> before it happened the first time because there was no one to predict
> it.
Um, no. It can't be predicted ahead of time because there is an
element of chance in the production of inheritable variation, upon
which natural selection acts. (As well as plain bad luck to those
individuals with beneficial traits.)
>
> * "Natural selection" is an oxymoron. Do not say "natural
> selection" when you mean "random outcome."
Of course we don't *mean random outcome. We are indeed talking about a
filtering process: differential reproduction resulting from
inheritable variation in a genepool of individuals interacting with
current environmental conditions. Isn't "natural selection" more
elegant?
> In atheistic evolution,
> nature has no mind or will; to treat it as such is pantheism, which is
> a form of theism.
Nobody says it has a mind or will.
> Selection means "this, instead of that." It always
> requires a selector.
No; it requires a filter (which is also a metaphor, but not
anthropomorphic).
> Selection is an intentional act,
Not necessarily (see above).
> while an outcome
> may or not be. Strictly speaking (and scientists should always speak
> strictly), if it is selective, it cannot be natural; if it is natural,
> it cannot be selective.
Scientists should speak carefully, but there is no reason for literate
people to speak only concretely (Oops! There's *another metaphor!).
>
> * Popular scientific reporting attributes will to nature
No, it doesn't.
> with the
> use of what atheistic evolutionists ought to reject as illegitimate
> metaphors.
So concrete thinking is okay, but mindless selection is not?
> An outrageous example is in the January 28 issue of Time,
> in which romantic love is described as a "commitment device," and then
> invents the reason for it out of nothing: "Natural selection has
> built love to make us feel romantic."
First, Time magazine is not science. It is at best, popular science
reporting in this article.
Second, this is possibly a scientific hypothesis; it depends on
whether or not researchers can come up with a way to test it.
Evolutionary psychology has many such "just-so" stories, which are not
universally considered decent science in anthropological and
biological circles.
> How a mindless process can build
> anything, nor how it would know that it should, is never stated.
Um, yes, it is.Starting with "Origin of Species" and on through
thousands of textbooks and millions of research papers, that very
subject is proposed, investigated, tested, and explained for the last
150 years.
> On
> the other hand, we are often told with smug superiority, though not in
> this article, that it is particularly stupid to think that God did
> it.
Not in science books, but perhaps by scientists. Other scientists,
like Collins, will say otherwise. They will all generally agree that
it is not a scientific matter.
>
> So get your own words, fellas. Our words mean something because we
> have a reference for choice, will, design, and so on. You want our
> words without our reference. That's cheating.
Thinking concretely is *so paleolithic...
Kermit
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
And here I thought I was a champion in overestimating my own
intelligence. I'll have to concede the crown.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
backspace
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JerryAdler
Author: JERRY ADLER
$2.95 - Newsweek - NewsBank - Nov 8, 1993
"... in which the random work of natural selection is superseded by a
planned ... the rules could stipulate that no one should be allowed to
clone Hitler, ..."
Inez
No, directed isn't a synonym for volition.
Inez
> On Oct 20, 9:57 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition: Who did the
> > > directing?-
>
> > No it doesn't. Weighted dice are non-random, yet have no volition.
>
> Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
I'm saying that non-random doesn't mean that someone did directing.
Inez
wrote:
> On 2009-10-20, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 10:28 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 20, 8:20 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 20, 9:57 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition: Who did the
> >> > > > directing?-
>
> >> > > No it doesn't. Weighted dice are non-random, yet have no volition.
>
> >> > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
>
> >> No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
> >> "will volition".
>
> > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?
>
> Correct, directed is not a synonym for volition.
>
> A creek bed directs water.
>
> Water in a creek does not have volition, nor does the creek bed.
Futher:
"Joe directed his employee to sharpen the pencils"
"Joe volition his employee to sharpen the pencils"
See how they aren't synonyms?
>
> You have a problem with modern hydrology as well as evolution, right?
>
> (There's also the small difficulty that we don't usually find
> past-tense verbs as synonyms for nouns.)-
Kermit
What you are talking about?
This disjointed quote from (a review?) something does not say
anything. Is it supposed to be part of an argument, a reference to
some evidence? I followed your link but it is not clear what you want
to say here. Or ever, for that matter.
Kermit
backspace
Thus nobody had any intent 5bil years ago when something happened,
non-random actually means random ? The issue is did somebody 5bil year
have intent, if not then "random" if there was intent "non-random',
who had intent. Did the universe make itself or was it made.
backspace
> On Oct 21, 8:37 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [[Category:TauTology]]http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JerryAdler
>
> > Author: JERRY ADLER
> > $2.95 - Newsweek - NewsBank - Nov 8, 1993
> > "... in which the random work of natural selection is superseded by a
> > planned ... the rules could stipulate that no one should be allowed to
> > clone Hitler, ..."
>
> What you are talking about?
Calm down Kermit, as an ex-Xtian you have all this figured out, no God
all a big mistake. I will die with my delusions and you will die not
ever finding out if you actually were correct. In the end nothing at
all matters, these debates will crumble to dust the sun will expand
and boil of the oceans, all the volition, emotion , love - just
nothing . As Berlinski said you people aren't actual atheists, a true,
true atheist such as his French atheist friends views a YEC as a
harmless nut, with mild bemusement, certainly won't hurl balls of
flaming sulpher across cyberspace like PZ myers is doing: animated for
the purpose of proving that he is purposeless. In the same way that a
true atheist won't get exited about the possibility of pink unicorn on
the planet Zog. A true atheist simply don't consider it worth his time
to even engage a YEC, that would be like debating somebody believing
in the tooth-fairy, certainly not something to get exited about.
In any case as requested here are the links:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=hitler+%22natural+selection%22&num=100&as_price=p0&ned=us&sa=N&sugg=d&as_user_ldate=1993&as_user_hdate=1994&lnav=d4&hdrange=1998,2008
Inez
> On Oct 21, 7:47 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 12:20 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 9:57 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition: Who did the
> > > > > directing?-
>
> > > > No it doesn't. Weighted dice are non-random, yet have no volition.
>
> > > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
>
> > I'm saying that non-random doesn't mean that someone did directing.
>
> Thus nobody had any intent 5bil years ago when something happened,
> non-random actually means random ?
No. Non-random does not actually mean random.
> The issue is did somebody 5bil year
> have intent, if not then "random" if there was intent "non-random',
> who had intent. Did the universe make itself or was it made.
See, but I just got done saying that non-random does not require
intent. You are carrying on an argument as if I did not believe this.
I will expand on my former claim: The majority of things that happen
without intent are non-random. Rain falls in a downward direction-
Non-random, no intent. A tree catches fire when lightning strikes it-
non-random, no intent. The wind knocks over a light object but a
heavy object remains standing- non-random, no intent.
Don Cates
> In article
> <6b658c9a-4094-4e31...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 18, 4:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Latest update to my ongoing tautology article
>>>> athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>>>> == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
>>>> (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
>>> nobody cares what aristotle said.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Aristotle was a moron.
>>
> You're that smart?
>
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Mitchell Coffey
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > In article
> > Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 18, 4:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 18, 2:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Latest update to my ongoing tautology article
> >>>> athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
> >>>> == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
> >>>> (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
> >>> nobody cares what aristotle said.
> >> [snip]
>
> >> Aristotle was a moron.
>
> > You're that smart?
>
When I wrote "Aristotle was a moron" I was lying.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
No. He means that the phrase "non-random means directed, motive, will
volition" isn't true.
Mitchell Coffey
backspace
> See, but I just got done saying that non-random does not require
> intent.
requirements, a symbol string, a collection of characters, only you
can have a concept and a requirement: non-random and random are the
words used to communicate your concept. I can't figure out what you
mean with "non-random" because Wikipedia uses it in the volitional ,
intention, directed sense in their articles on probability sampling.
The author's intent in those articles I get, yours not yet but I am
trying.
> I will expand on my former claim: The majority of things that happen
> without intent are non-random.
depends what concept you wish to convey with non-random, usually what
you wrote means random.
> Rain falls in a downward direction- Non-random, no intent.
Random, no-intent a pattern not a design.
> A tree catches fire when lightning strikes it- non-random, no intent.
A pattern, random, no intent.
Thus you say non-random but really mean random because a tree catching
fire in storm doesn't mean the lighting had intent. See how fun games
with words can get.
John Wilkins
<caHOR...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
I'm from Australia, and as we know, Australia is entirely peopled with
criminals, so you can clearly not trust me.
[At *last* someone did the next line, or something close to it!]
Burkhard
> In article <hbnldv$a28$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, Don Cates
> <caHOR...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <6b658c9a-4094-4e31...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 4:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 18, 2:48 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Latest update to my ongoing tautology article
>>>>>> athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>>>>>> == Tautologies from Aristotle ==
>>>>>> (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (
>>>>> nobody cares what aristotle said.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Aristotle was a moron.
>>>>
>>> You're that smart?
>>>
>> That was criminal.
>
> I'm from Australia, and as we know, Australia is entirely peopled with
> criminals, so you can clearly not trust me.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Garamond Lethe
>> See, but I just got done saying that non-random does not require
>> intent.
> "non-random" isn't a concept or some sort of entity it has no
> requirements, a symbol string, a collection of characters,
Ah, I see where the typo is causing confusion. You had meant to
say:
<q>
"&)_)_0-32sjj7" isn't a concept or some sort of entity it has no
requirements, a symbol string, a collection of characters.
</q>
You can see how a slip of the finger that resulted in standard
English that does have a strong set of requirements would have
caused confusion.
> only you
> can have a concept and a requirement: non-random and random are the
> words used to communicate your concept.
I admire your perservence in shoveling gibberish. Really, I do.
> I can't figure out what you
> mean with "non-random"
Yes, this is true. It's a rare, profound handicap. My sympathies.
> because Wikipedia uses it in the volitional ,
> intention, directed sense in their articles on probability sampling.
> The author's intent in those articles I get, yours not yet but I am
> trying.
I see no evidence of that.
>
>> I will expand on my former claim: The majority of things that happen
>> without intent are non-random.
> depends what concept you wish to convey with non-random, usually what
> you wrote means random.
>
>> Rain falls in a downward direction- Non-random, no intent.
> Random, no-intent a pattern not a design.
Random can be intentioal or unintentional and can result in pattern
or no pattern.
Non-random can be intentional or unintentional and can result in
pattern or no pattern.
Sorry.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Until you define evolution you are not even wrong.
Forgive my vulgar curiosity, but have you ever discussed these matters
face to face with real people in the flesh? If so, did they hit you to
make you stop? Or did they simply go away and leave you on your own?
You see, people really hate it when somebody keeps on saying the same
crazy thing over and over and over again --particularly when they've
more than once been to some trouble to explain it and been completely
ignored.
--
Mike.
Inez
> On Oct 21, 9:42 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:> See, but I just got done saying that non-random does not require
> > intent.
>
> "non-random" isn't a concept or some sort of entity it has no
> requirements, a symbol string, a collection of characters, only you
> can have a concept and a requirement: non-random and random are the
> words used to communicate your concept.
So?
> I can't figure out what you
> mean with "non-random" because Wikipedia uses it in the volitional ,
> intention, directed sense in their articles on probability sampling.
> The author's intent in those articles I get, yours not yet but I am
> trying.
No, you aren't trying.
Imagine that the term non-random could be used to indicate any sort of
non-randomness, either volitional or not. You are now inching closer
to the meaning of the word. Go carefully, we don't want you to hurt
yourself.
Now, imagine that non-random as it applies to evolution is in the non-
volitional sense. There you go!
> > I will expand on my former claim: The majority of things that happen
> > without intent are non-random.
>
> depends what concept you wish to convey with non-random, usually what
> you wrote means random.
No, it doesn't depend on what I wish to convey. Reality is reality,
what I wish to convey does not change it.
> > Rain falls in a downward direction- Non-random, no intent.
>
> Random, no-intent a pattern not a design.
Why does it never fall upward then? If it were falling randomly it
would go in all directions, but it doesn't.
> > A tree catches fire when lightning strikes it- non-random, no intent.
>
> A pattern, random, no intent.
>
Why does the tree never freeze? Why does the tree that is not struck
by lightning not catch on fire? Clearly not a random event.
> Thus you say non-random but really mean random because a tree catching
> fire in storm doesn't mean the lighting had intent.
But see, you're the only one who thinks that non-random means intent.
You are wrong.
>See how fun games
> with words can get.
It depends on your intent with "fun."
Burkhard
somehow thinks God can help him out of it.
Kermit
> On Oct 21, 7:47 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 12:20 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 9:57 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > non-random means directed, motive, will volition: Who did the
> > > > > directing?-
>
> > > > No it doesn't. Weighted dice are non-random, yet have no volition.
>
> > > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
>
> > I'm saying that non-random doesn't mean that someone did directing.
>
> Thus
The following is not a conclusion of what Inez posted. Thus "thus" is
inappropriate.
> nobody had any intent 5bil years ago when something happened,
Correct.
> non-random actually means random ?
No. Who said that?
> The issue is did somebody 5bil year
> have intent, if not then "random" if there was intent "non-random',
No. Non-random is not synonymous with "intended" or "deliberate".
Random (depending on context) means something like "lacking any
definite plan or order"
If there is order, it is non-random. No mind is required, only a
process which leads to some discernible order.
Many of my garden plants follow the sun as it moves across the sky.
Does that mean they have minds?
> who had intent. Did the universe make itself or was it made.
Neither. It happened without intent, as far as we can tell. Irrelevant
to evolution, in any event.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Oct 21, 9:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 8:37 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [[Category:TauTology]]http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JerryAdler
>
> > > Author: JERRY ADLER
> > > $2.95 - Newsweek - NewsBank - Nov 8, 1993
> > > "... in which the random work of natural selection is superseded by a
> > > planned ... the rules could stipulate that no one should be allowed to
> > > clone Hitler, ..."
>
> > What you are talking about?
>
> Calm down Kermit, as an ex-Xtian you have all this figured out, no God
> all a big mistake. I will die with my delusions and you will die not
> ever finding out if you actually were correct.
Correct. What annoys me is that you won't. either.
> In the end nothing at
> all matters,
It matters to me. Are you saying that none of it matters unless you
get to live forever in that Great Church Picnic in the Sky? How
selfish. Perhaps ultimately this universe itself dies the slow death,
and nothing will be that remembers it.
So?
Grab life while you're here, make something of yourself.
> these debates will crumble to dust the sun will expand
> and boil of the oceans, all the volition, emotion , love - just
> nothing . As Berlinski said you people aren't actual atheists,
Do I also believe in Santa Claus? If I do, I should know, because
Christmas is coming up and I may want to make some plans.
> a true,
> true atheist such as his French atheist friends views a YEC as a
> harmless nut, with mild bemusement, certainly won't hurl balls of
> flaming sulpher across cyberspace like PZ myers is doing: animated for
> the purpose of proving that he is purposeless.
Professor Myers is simply telling everyone that he thinks religions
are goofy and lead to much mischief. He doesn't think he is
purposeless. Are you saying that we would be without purpose unless it
is to spend eternity telling an insecure deity that he's wonderful?
Sounds like an eternity without dignity, to me, for Yahweh as well as
his eternal groupies.
But I know some folks have a more ...subtle religion than that.
Curiously, they've never told me that my life is purposeless, nor that
I should think so.
> In the same way that a
> true atheist won't get exited about the possibility of pink unicorn on
> the planet Zog. A true atheist simply don't consider it worth his time
> to even engage a YEC, that would be like debating somebody believing
> in the tooth-fairy, certainly not something to get exited about.
>
You are not simply quietly praising the cosmic child abuser off in the
corner, however. You are doing your damnedest to destroy science, sow
confusion, delay true civilization, and frighten babies.
> In any case as requested here are the links:http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=hitler+%22natural+selection%22...
>
> http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NWEC&p_theme=n...
Yes, yes. I found those 21 links before. What I don't understand is
what you intend for them to support or illustrate.
What am I supposed to get out of them? I see you searched for
hitler "natural selection"
Why 1993-94?
So? Perhaps I should search also:
Christian "child molester"
Ooh! 1390 hits!
Of course this covers 1970-2009.
Only 35 per year on the average.
Does this establish anything?
Kermit