On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:01:35 PM UTC+1, UC wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > the end product
> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> Here's my edit:
> Before Darwin, who could have guessed that something so seemingly the
> product of design as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the result of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural
> causes?...
A dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye appear to be designed for their function. Before Darwin,
who could have guessed that such things are really
the end product of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?
>On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:22:21 PM UTC+1, Bruce Stephens wrote:
>> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> >> the end product
>> >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>> >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
>> >> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> >> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
>> > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
>> Dawkins is American? When did that happen?
>Dawkins like Hawkins is American on the basis that all famous >scientists are American.
s/Hawkins/Hawking/
>(Hawkins was famously given as an example of someone who wouldm't be >alive today if they'd had to depend on the Britsh National Health >Service and its infamous "Death Boards". Death Boards are NICE-ly >newspeaked.)
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
Klaus
+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> >> the end product
> >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> >> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> >> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
> Dawkins is American? When did that happen?
> (I also find the sentence reads fine, but then I'm English so what do I
> know about the language?)
The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
Platonic binary contrasts.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:47:08 AM UTC+1, Burkhard wrote:
> On Jun 28, 10:37 am, Reentrant <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > On 28/06/2012 10:14, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> > >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > >> the end product
> > >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > >> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > >> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > > um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish) claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
> > Yes - not because "were" is factually correct but because it should be
> > the plural form.
> > "... wing or eye WERE ..." not "... wing or eye WAS ...". So the OP is
> > right; there is a grammatical error.
> > --
> > Reentrant
> My grammar book from school said that "Two singular subjects connected
> by either/or or neither/nor require a singular verb" - i did a quick
> check for online sources, this one says the same:
> http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp
> Not being a native speaker, my intuitions are not the best guide, they
> would have been with you though.
Actually, the subject is "something". I could say that "I have, in my pocket, something as green as a cypress tree, or a freshly mowed lawn." The something isn't a tree or a lawn.
Instead of "something", Professor Dawkins could have written "things" or "such things",
and "were" plural instead of "was".
I'm not sure, but a shift in grammar from "It is not green, but if it were green, ..."
to, "It is not green, but if it was green, ..."
might apply here. The first nowadays is correct but showy-offy; the second is
acceptable and normal. I've forgotten what
the first one is called.
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:01:35 PM UTC+1, UC wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > Here's my edit:
> > Before Darwin, who could have guessed that something so seemingly the
> > product of design as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > the result of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural
> > causes?...
> A dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye appear
> to be designed for their function. Before Darwin,
> who could have guessed that such things are really
> the end product of a long sequence of non-random
> but purely natural causes?
Your are should be an aren't from the premise that non-random isn't
the same thing as natural,undirected or random.
Note from the premise, not whether the premise is incorrect or not.
On Jun 28, 10:14 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > the end product
> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish) claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
They were the end product of what non-random or random processes? A
random process like tornadoes only represents itself, while a non-
random process represents something other than itself like books,
cars, bridges etc.
> On Jun 28, 10:14 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish) claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
> They were the end product of what non-random or random processes? A
> random process like tornadoes only represents itself, while a non-
> random process represents something other than itself like books,
> cars, bridges etc.
In that light, the OP's title "should have been", "I admit that I am
an idiot and have no understanding".
> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > the end product
> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> Klaus
Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed? From a
dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
> On 28/06/2012 10:14, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> >> the end product
> >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> >> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> >> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish) claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
> Yes - not because "were" is factually correct but because it should be
> the plural form.
> "... wing or eye WERE ..." not "... wing or eye WAS ...". So the OP is
> right; there is a grammatical error.
> --
> Reentrant
Would you rewrite the sentence for me than? Here are the facts:
1) Before Darwin the view was that animals were the product of non-
random directed guidance or creation.
2) During DArwin's time it was the view of blind chance, random. This
was affirmed by Osborn in his NYTimes article around 1921 I think. The
reference is on my http://tautology.wikia.com under the Osborn
entry.
Thus we went from non-random to random and now seemingly back to non-
random as Dawkins and Wikipedia revises history. An additional
problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
Darwin's time, it was understood as such. The Newspeak that non-random
no longer is the opposite of random I identified in the Osborn article
> On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > Klaus
> Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed?
No, "not random" is the synonym of "deterministic", or if you use it
in the epistemic sense, of "predictable"
>From a
> dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
For a text written now, the question how a term was defined in the
19th century is pretty much irrelevant.
> On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > Klaus
> Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed? From a
> dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
No, "the issue" raised by your post, is whether you have the moral
right to try to change an author's words to make the author seem to
support your sectarian agenda. Dawkins said what he meant, using the
terms he meant to use, to support the point he meant to make. "Non-
chocolate" does NOT mean "vanilla", but any flavor that is not
chocolate, out of the myriad alternatives. "Not random" does NOT mean
"directed", but any process that is not random, out of the myriad
alternatives.
> On Jun 27, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > backspace wrote:
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
> > parsing that sentence quite easily.
> Well, then maybe my English is not that good, I don't get it.
> This makes more sense:
> Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so apparently
> designed as a dragonfly's wing ..... wasn't really the end product
> of .... non-random but purely natural causes?....
> This version Dawkins is saying that before Darwin it was believed that
> non-random directed intervention
> generated a dragonfly as opposed to random undirected forces.
> Where am I misreading him?
The way this Afrikaner from South-Africa understand English is that
the @but@ gives us a delineation between two choices either random/non-
random or pattern/design or natural/directed. Thus the was must be a
@was not@ or wasn't to indicate a choice between two semantic
opposites.
If Dawkins meant to formulate a sentence with just one choice, not
contrasting to anything else , then he has entered his own type of
Wittgenstein @private language@ that makes no sense. Language only
functions to describe contrasts we understand light as the contrast to
darkness.
His usage of @before@ indicates a difference or contrast between
concepts,the once concept before Darwin and the other concept after
Darwin. Historically this was non-random/random.
> problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
> Darwin's time, it was understood as such.
Where did Dawkins use the word "random" in the sentence you quote? I only see the word "natural". Random and non-random are antonyms still; Natural and non-random are not. Earth's orbit both natural and non-random.
> On Jun 28, 7:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
> > > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > > the end product
> > > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > > Klaus
> > Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed? From a
> > dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> > dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
> No, "the issue" raised by your post, is whether you have the moral
> right to try to change an author's words to make the author seem to
> support your sectarian agenda. Dawkins said what he meant, using the
> terms he meant to use, to support the point he meant to make. "Non-
> chocolate" does NOT mean "vanilla", but any flavor that is not
> chocolate, out of the myriad alternatives. "Not random" does NOT mean
> "directed", but any process that is not random, out of the myriad
> alternatives.
Is there any alternative to the light / darkness contrast established
by Christ himself.
> On Jun 27, 10:04 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > backspace wrote:
> > > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > > the end product
> > > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > > The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
> > > parsing that sentence quite easily.
> > Well, then maybe my English is not that good, I don't get it.
> > This makes more sense:
> > Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so apparently
> > designed as a dragonfly's wing ..... wasn't really the end product
> > of .... non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > This version Dawkins is saying that before Darwin it was believed that
> > non-random directed intervention
> > generated a dragonfly as opposed to random undirected forces.
> > Where am I misreading him?
> The way this Afrikaner from South-Africa understand English is that
> the @but@ gives us a delineation between two choices either random/non-
> random or pattern/design or natural/directed. Thus the was must be a
> @was not@ or wasn't to indicate a choice between two semantic
> opposites.
> If Dawkins meant to formulate a sentence with just one choice, not
> contrasting to anything else , then he has entered his own type of
> Wittgenstein @private language@ that makes no sense. Language only
> functions to describe contrasts we understand light as the contrast to
> darkness.
> His usage of @before@ indicates a difference or contrast between
> concepts,the once concept before Darwin and the other concept after
> Darwin. Historically this was non-random/random.
"...non-chocolate, but still delicious...", still does not mean,
"vanilla"
> On Jun 28, 2:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
> > > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > > the end product
> > > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > > Klaus
> > Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed?
> No, "not random" is the synonym of "deterministic", or if you use it
> in the epistemic sense, of "predictable"
Are you using epistemic as the dissimilar term for falsifiable?
Deterministic , predictable, random, non-random etc. are either
synonymous or dissimilar terms used to represent a Platonic binary
opposite. Namely a pattern with a purpose or pattern without a
purpose.
> >From a
> > dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> > dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
> For a text written now, the question how a term was defined in the
> 19th century is pretty much irrelevant.
> > problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
> > Darwin's time, it was understood as such.
> Where did Dawkins use the word "random" in the sentence you quote? I
> only see the word "natural". Random and non-random are antonyms still;
> Natural and non-random are not. Earth's orbit both natural and non-random.
Natural in the context used by Darwin was meant as the contrast to non-
random as indicated by his usage of @before@. He was describing a
situation ***before*** Darwin and after Darwin. Thus Natural should be
the dissimilar term by Dawkins to project this contrast to the concept
conveyed by non-random, namely random. Therefore his was is
incorrect , it should either be wasn't or weren't . With wasn't the
contrasts between a concept before and after is indicated. Thus from
my KJV YEC Creationism Platonic opposites, Dawkins sentence doesn't
parse within my grammatical reference frame: he bastardized syntax.
>>> problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
>>> Darwin's time, it was understood as such.
>> Where did Dawkins use the word "random" in the sentence you quote? I
>> only see the word "natural". Random and non-random are antonyms still;
>> Natural and non-random are not. Earth's orbit both natural and non-random.
> Natural in the context used by Darwin was meant as the contrast to non-
> random as indicated by his usage of @before@. He was describing a
> situation ***before*** Darwin and after Darwin. Thus Natural should be
> the dissimilar term by Dawkins to project this contrast to the concept
> conveyed by non-random, namely random. Therefore his was is
> incorrect , it should either be wasn't or weren't . With wasn't the
> contrasts between a concept before and after is indicated. Thus from
> my KJV YEC Creationism Platonic opposites, Dawkins sentence doesn't
> parse within my grammatical reference frame: he bastardized syntax.
Hard to believe the irony above could be unintended.
On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
Oh, the ancient Greek philosophers, among others...
> > > problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
> > > Darwin's time, it was understood as such.
> > Where did Dawkins use the word "random" in the sentence you quote? I
> > only see the word "natural". Random and non-random are antonyms still;
> > Natural and non-random are not. Earth's orbit both natural and non-random.
> Natural in the context used by Darwin was meant as the contrast to non-
> random as indicated by his usage of @before@. He was describing a
> situation ***before*** Darwin and after Darwin. Thus Natural should be
> the dissimilar term by Dawkins to project this contrast to the concept
> conveyed by non-random, namely random. Therefore his was is
> incorrect , it should either be wasn't or weren't . With wasn't the
> contrasts between a concept before and after is indicated. Thus from
> my KJV YEC Creationism Platonic opposites, Dawkins sentence doesn't
> parse within my grammatical reference frame: he bastardized syntax.
You're mixing up Darwin and Dawkins now. But that
isn't the problem.
Darwin's evolution is non-random /and/ natural,
because natural events produce design-like adaptations to "purpose", which I put into quotes because I suppose nobody /intended/ that there should be eagles. There just are.
If I throw a stone, it is random because I can choose any direction to throw the stone, but it is non-random because the stone will certainly fall to the ground, because of the non-random force of gravity.
A natural genetic variation in an individual eagle's eye may be random, with some individuals
able to see better, and some not so well, but,
in a process that I personally don't rule out
calling /partly/ random, the individuals with
better sight tend to prosper and successfully reproduce, and the less well adapted individuals tend not to prosper, and the next generation tends to be descended from the better-adapted birds, and to inherit the better characteristics.
At least, that's what I think Professor Dawkins
meant to say, there.
> On Jun 28, 2:54 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 7:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
> > > > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > > > the end product
> > > > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > > > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > > > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > > > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > > > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > > > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > > > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > > > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > > > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > > > Klaus
> > > Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed? From a
> > > dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> > > dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
> > No, "the issue" raised by your post, is whether you have the moral
> > right to try to change an author's words to make the author seem to
> > support your sectarian agenda. Dawkins said what he meant, using the
> > terms he meant to use, to support the point he meant to make. "Non-
> > chocolate" does NOT mean "vanilla", but any flavor that is not
> > chocolate, out of the myriad alternatives. "Not random" does NOT mean
> > "directed", but any process that is not random, out of the myriad
> > alternatives.
> Is there any alternative to the light / darkness contrast established
> by Christ himself.
Your Christ intentionally set up a dichotomy: light/darkness. had he
said, "light/non-light", there would not be a dichotomy.
In article <ee74fff1-7f24-4022-b6a4-1a43dcf1c091
@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, stephan...@gmail.com says...
> The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
> randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
> that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
> Platonic binary contrasts.
The only possible way you could ever interpret the statement that way is if you believe natural = random, so I suspect you are now just arguing for arguments sake after you saw your initial post get shot down in flames.
-- The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are fantastic
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:22:21 PM UTC+1, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > >> the end product
> > >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> > >> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > >> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
> > > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
> > Dawkins is American? When did that happen?
> Dawkins like Hawkins is American on the basis that all famous scientists are American.
> (Hawkins was famously given as an example of someone who wouldm't be alive today if they'd had to depend on the Britsh National Health Service and its infamous "Death Boards". Death Boards are NICE-ly newspeaked.)
I agree the English is a bit awkward, but clear enough. In any case,
the Greeks already had such a notion.
> Yes - not because "were" is factually correct but because it should be
> the plural form.
> "... wing or eye WERE ..." not "... wing or eye WAS ...". So the OP is
> right; there is a grammatical error.
The following sentence is grammatical for me:
"John or Matilda is the one who killed Christopher"
The following sentence is ungrammatical for me:
*"John or Matilda are the one who killed Christopher."
The verb shouldn't be plural, at least in my dialect. Let me know if this is not clear.
