Natural Selection is blind - Huffington pst
backspace
mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are
considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are
plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process
of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it
is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can
easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short
of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for
government work" but far from perfect..."
If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
Ron O
Because it doesn't need to see to reach a local maximum, unlike some
people we know that want to wallow in the troughs, and can't climb out
by themselves.
Ron Okimoto
Bob T.
The one does not follow from the other. Take you, for example: you
are stupid, but you are not blind. Q.E.D.
- Bob T.
Ye Old One
Useless word salad.
>
>
>If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
Because nothing could be as stupid as you!
--
Bob.
Charles Brenner
It is stupid in a way. That's the reasonable point that the passage
makes.
For example, NS has little chance to evolve creatures so that their
post-reproductive years are healthier, or to do a complete cleanup/
rewrite from scratch of the genome.
Ernest Major
<79321111-456f-4bad...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
is partly conventional, but using blindness as a metaphor to describe
the locally optimising properties of natural selection captures the
essence of the point that it is wished to make better than using
stupidity as a metaphor. Note the use of metaphorical language - in your
literalistic world natural selection is neither blind nor stupid, but a
locally optimising (for reproductive success) process.
There is also the saying that "evolution is cleverer than you are",
which for those who understand the context, and are pragmatically
competent, makes perfect sense. Using an apparently contradictory
metaphor might confuse the less informed, and provide opportunities for
wilful misunderstanding.
--
alias Ernest Major
Earle Jones
<79321111-456f-4bad...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
There are many people who, for one reason or another, are blind and are
not stupid.
The converse is also true: There are people (like you, for example) who
are not blind, but are clearly very stupid.
earle
*
Bill Murray
selection is how nature or a divine inspiration, experiments to see
what will work best under certain types of living conditions.
David Canzi
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A protein sequence with 100 amino acids can vary in 100 different
directions. In effect it has 100 dimensions. (I have found a
wonderful proof that it has more than 100 dimensions, but the
margin is too small to contain it.)
In mathematics, intuition is often deceptive. You can't assume
that your intuitive understanding of landscapes, based on your
ordinary experience of two-dimensional terrains, leads to correct
conclusions when you try to apply it to spaces of hundreds or
thousands of dimensions.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
Vend
> In article <79321111-456f-4bad-ba12-c3d7d284a...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged
> >mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are
> >considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are
> >plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process
> >of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it
> >is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can
> >easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short
> >of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for
> >government work" but far from perfect..."
>
> A protein sequence with 100 amino acids can vary in 100 different
> directions. In effect it has 100 dimensions. (I have found a
> wonderful proof that it has more than 100 dimensions, but the
> margin is too small to contain it.)
Reference noted.
backspace
> That natural selection is how nature or a divine inspiration, experiments to see
> what will work best under certain types of living conditions.
When NS "experiments" are you using NS in the pattern or design sense?
Does NS have mind of its own and if not what then is your intent.
Woland
> On Jul 5, 8:25 pm, billmurra...@msn.com (Bill Murray) wrote:
>
> > That natural selection is how nature or a divine inspiration, experiments to see
> > what will work best under certain types of living conditions.
>
> When NS "experiments" are you using NS in the pattern or design sense?
Its being used in the metaphorical, or anthropomorphic sense.
> Does NS have mind of its own and if not what then is your intent.
Dude, its a metaphor. Does your car run on gasoline?
raven1
If you're stupid, why aren't you blind?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
Is this question supposed to have an actual meaning, or is
it merely intended to demonstrate the level of cluelessness
under which you labor? If the second, it's redundant after
all your other posts.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>In article <79321111-456f-4bad...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged
>>mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are
>>considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are
>>plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process
>>of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it
>>is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can
>>easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short
>>of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for
>>government work" but far from perfect..."
>
>A protein sequence with 100 amino acids can vary in 100 different
>directions. In effect it has 100 dimensions. (I have found a
>wonderful proof that it has more than 100 dimensions, but the
>margin is too small to contain it.)
;-)
So multiple generations of postgrads will labor in vain to
recreate the proof, right?
>In mathematics, intuition is often deceptive. You can't assume
>that your intuitive understanding of landscapes, based on your
>ordinary experience of two-dimensional terrains, leads to correct
>conclusions when you try to apply it to spaces of hundreds or
>thousands of dimensions.
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>On Jul 5, 8:25 pm, billmurra...@msn.com (Bill Murray) wrote:
>> That natural selection is how nature or a divine inspiration, experiments to see
>> what will work best under certain types of living conditions.
>When NS "experiments" are you using NS in the pattern or design sense?
Yes.
>Does NS have mind of its own and if not what then is your intent.
No, and the intent (obviously foredoomed to failure) is to
educate you.
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:79321111-456f-4bad...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If you actually have something to say why not just do it. This endless word
game presented as a serial is boring.
David
Tim Tyler
It's neither blind nor stupid. As I argue in
http://alife.co.uk/essays/evolution_sees/
sexual selection is not blind - but even if
you define natural selection so that it refers
only to death, and not differential reproductive
success, it is still not blind - male combat
involves selection by intelligent agents, well
capable of predicting the consequences of
their actions - and this process is part of
evolution by natural selection.
Calling natural selection "blind" is like calling
the Meteorological Office blind - it is not really
a very accurate description.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.
Robert Carnegie
Your quoted text apparently comes from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-marcus/unintelligent-design_b_110082.html
which is very heavily commented.
A problem with the metaphor is that it implies, probably
unintentionally, once you are on the local mountaintop, there's no
way to go further. That when a species gets as good as it can, it
stops evolving. There are many things wrong with that argument, and
apparently the author's professional qualification is in psychology.
But yeah - we can suppose that, for instance, our eyes would work
better if blood vessels were /behind/ the retina, not in front. But
apparently evolution can't flip around that arrangement. I'm not sure
why not, though...
Tim Tyler
> A problem with the metaphor is that it implies, probably
> unintentionally, once you are on the local mountaintop, there's no
> way to go further. That when a species gets as good as it can, it
> stops evolving. There are many things wrong with that argument, and
> apparently the author's professional qualification is in psychology.
>
> But yeah - we can suppose that, for instance, our eyes would work
> better if blood vessels were /behind/ the retina, not in front. But
> apparently evolution can't flip around that arrangement. I'm not sure
> why not, though...
These days, we have engineers and refactoring - so larger leaps
are becoming increasingly possible for evolution. We are unlikely
to see such a minor refactoring as humans with reversed retinas,
though.
More likely we will see major refactorings - including a replaced
genetic substrate and expansion far beyond today's 20 amino
acids - changes that will make historical accidents about the
orientation of retinal cells irrelevant.
hersheyh
Both descriptives are meant metaphorically. NS is a simple
consequence of the fact that environments constrain reproductive
success (vide Malthus). The environment includes blind and sighted
entities (other organisms) and smart and stupid entities (other
organisms) that can affect or constrain reproductive success. And the
environment also includes many other features that constrain
reproductive success (like temperature, rainfall, soil composition)
that are not blind, sighted, smart, or stupid.
Metaphorically describing the simple fact that environments constrain
reproductive success in organisms (especially when it does so
differentially depending on the organism's genetic makeup) as if the
environment were some sort of 'intelligent actor' making 'choices' is
just that: metaphor. Some people, however, are far too stupid to
understand that. Not to name names, but one of these stupid people
goes by a pseudonym that refers to the retrograde emptiness between
his ears.
Rolf
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:79321111-456f-4bad...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Is 'stupid' a relevant term in the context of Natural Selection? If yes,
why, how?
It is a well known fact that one doesn't even have to be an idiot to ask
questions nobody can answer. What is the purpose? In the case of this
spinner, it obviously is just to lay traps to show how stupid everyone else
is.
backspace
> consequence of the fact that environments constrain reproductive
> success (vide Malthus). The environment includes blind and sighted
> entities (other organisms) and smart and stupid entities (other
> organisms) that can affect or constrain reproductive success. And the
> environment also includes many other features that constrain
> reproductive success (like temperature, rainfall, soil composition)
> that are not blind, sighted, smart, or stupid.
> Metaphorically describing the simple fact that environments constrain
> reproductive success in organisms (especially when it does so
> differentially depending on the organism's genetic makeup) as if the
> environment were some sort of 'intelligent actor' making 'choices' is
> just that: metaphor.
After reading the above, can you tell me how the bumble bee worked out
neural-net control theory from PID control theory. All control
engineers begin with PID before learning neural-net. How does telling
me about "reproductive success" explain this.
Woland
The bumble-bee ancestors that had traits better suited to the
environment were able to have more bumble-babies than those without
said trait (i.e. greater reproductive success). Duh.
backspace
> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Sure I especially like the time I asked: "Does evolution happen by
chance? " After everybody told me what moron I am for asking such a
stupid question, I revealed that it was a statement by the AAAS in
1991 that evolution happens by chance, a statement I reformulated as a
question. Even Dr.Harshman had to compliment me on that stunt and he
doesn't think I have much upstairs.
backspace
> Is 'stupid' a relevant term in the context of Natural Selection? If yes,
> why, how?
And what is the context? What time epoch are you referring to 1863 or
today. Darwin wrote in 1863 that he should have used "natural
preservation". The tile of OoS is :"...natural selection or the
preservation of favored races...."
Because races were "favored" they were preserved, because they were
"preserved" they were favored, this is a tautology
which has got nothing to do with the word selection. Dawkins said that
"....NS is the greatest concept ever devised by the mind of man...."
Is Dawkins trying to tell us that Darwin's intent that the
preservation of white races above blacks was the greatest idea devised
by the mind of man ?
David Canzi
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:33:11 +0000 (UTC), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi):
>>directions. In effect it has 100 dimensions. (I have found a
>>wonderful proof that it has more than 100 dimensions, but the
>>margin is too small to contain it.)
>
>;-)
>
>So multiple generations of postgrads will labor in vain to
>recreate the proof, right?
Only if I become a famous mathematician first. A brief examination
of my academic CV (cat /dev/null) doesn't give me much hope.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
<seem...@googlemail.com>:
>On Jul 5, 5:45 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "...A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged
>> mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are
>> considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are
>> plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process
>> of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it
>> is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can
>> easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short
>> of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for
>> government work" but far from perfect..."
>>
>> If NS is blind then why isn't it stupid ?
>
>It's neither blind nor stupid. As I argue in
>http://alife.co.uk/essays/evolution_sees/
>sexual selection is not blind - but even if
>you define natural selection so that it refers
>only to death, and not differential reproductive
>success, it is still not blind - male combat
>involves selection by intelligent agents, well
>capable of predicting the consequences of
>their actions - and this process is part of
>evolution by natural selection.
So *part* of NS can be labeled not blind. That doesn't mean
that a large part (the majority, IMHO) *is* blind, since
such items as rogue bolides and advancing ice sheets, both
of which impact differential survival and thus differential
reproductive success, hardly qualify as anything else.
>Calling natural selection "blind" is like calling
>the Meteorological Office blind - it is not really
>a very accurate description.
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
Bees are not engineers, and stepwise biological adaptation
and improvement aren't a process of formal instruction.
> How does telling
>me about "reproductive success" explain this.
In your case, nothing at all can explain anything since you
keep your ears firmly covered.
Bob Casanova
>In article <vu10741nu5o2fvhep...@4ax.com>,
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:33:11 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>>dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi):
>>>A protein sequence with 100 amino acids can vary in 100 different
>>>directions. In effect it has 100 dimensions. (I have found a
>>>wonderful proof that it has more than 100 dimensions, but the
>>>margin is too small to contain it.)
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>So multiple generations of postgrads will labor in vain to
>>recreate the proof, right?
>
>Only if I become a famous mathematician first. A brief examination
>of my academic CV (cat /dev/null) doesn't give me much hope.
Keep plugging. Advanced mathematicians evoke the same
feeling of awe in me as do competent stage magicians - "How
in hell does he *do* that?!?"
hersheyh
The above is irrelevant. I answered your question about natural
selection by pointing out that both 'blind' and 'stupid' are
metaphorical descriptions of the *fact* that environments constrain
reproductive success (and do so, at least sometimes, differentially
based on the organism's genotype). That *differential* effect is
natural selection. The non-differential constraint is selective
neutrality, which results in drift.
My point is that there is no *real* sight or smarts in the
environment. Now the only question is whether or not *you* so "blind"
or "stupid" that you don't know what a "metaphor" is? If you have
some problem with the idea that the environment constrains, sometimes
differentially, the reproductive success of the organisms that inhabit
that environment, such as thinking that environments have no effect of
reproductive success, this would be a good time to argue that point.
Otherwise, you are simply trying to avoid the answer by asking
tangential irrelevancies, hoping that that irrelevancy is some sort of
stumper.
It isn't, of course, at least at some level of generality. But I want
you to focus. Try real hard to use that minimal amount of material
sticking to your touching fingers that you put in your ears. Do you
or do you not think that environments constrain reproductive success?
Do you or do you not think that sometimes environments differentially
constrain reproductive success? Just answer those questions. Do not
wander off on a tangent.
backspace
> > After reading the above, can you tell me how the bumble bee worked out
> > neural-net control theory from PID control theory. All control
> > engineers begin with PID before learning neural-net. How does telling
> > me about "reproductive success" explain this.
> The above is irrelevant. I answered your question about natural
> selection by pointing out that both 'blind' and 'stupid' are
> metaphorical descriptions of the *fact* that environments constrain
> reproductive success (and do so, at least sometimes, differentially
> based on the organism's genotype).
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html
"...Many great theories are held together by chains of dubious
metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified the hogwash
surrounding evolutionary theory....
> That *differential* effect is
> natural selection. The non-differential constraint is selective
> neutrality, which results in drift.
> My point is that there is no *real* sight or smarts in the
> environment. Now the only question is whether or not *you* so "blind"
> or "stupid" that you don't know what a "metaphor" is? If you have
> some problem with the idea that the environment constrains, sometimes
> differentially, the reproductive success of the organisms that inhabit
> that environment, such as thinking that environments have no effect of
> reproductive success, this would be a good time to argue that point.
> Otherwise, you are simply trying to avoid the answer by asking
> tangential irrelevancies, hoping that that irrelevancy is some sort of
> stumper.
"Reproductive success" isn't a technical term, it isn't a theory but a
two word term which can be used by any signal sender to encode his
specific intent to us signal receivers. What is the formal definition
of some concept that you keep on calling RS ? As
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/ReproductiveSuccess discussed here I
pointed out that there is no formal definition of what a RS is. Darwin
never used the term and theories are always formally defined as
noshellwell pointed out.
Take the sentence "The father achieved reproductive success after
deciding that he will start a family." In this sentence we know that
the father had a predetermined goal and on achieving it he obtained
"success". Success is defined as achieving a goal. Do frogs have
goals ? If a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it
still be a success? For who is a cow a "success". Lets presume there
were no humans on earth, would the existence of frogs be a success
from the point of view of a camel.
And if you go to Ken Ham's site he also uses "reproductive success" -
everybody has now become mentally ill and the lurkers around here
reading our debates and trying to figure out the meaning of Life are
caught in this iron triangle
of insanity between Ham, Dembski and materialists.
Tim Tyler
> posted by Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com>:
> >It's neither blind nor stupid. As I argue in
> >http://alife.co.uk/essays/evolution_sees/
> >sexual selection is not blind - but even if
> >you define natural selection so that it refers
> >only to death, and not differential reproductive
> >success, it is still not blind - male combat
> >involves selection by intelligent agents, well
> >capable of predicting the consequences of
> >their actions - and this process is part of
> >evolution by natural selection.
>
> So *part* of NS can be labeled not blind. That doesn't mean
> that a large part (the majority, IMHO) *is* blind, since
> such items as rogue bolides and advancing ice sheets, both
> of which impact differential survival and thus differential
> reproductive success, hardly qualify as anything else.
Right. Evolution is /gradually/ waking up.
At the moment it's still largely in the land of nod, and hasn't yet
remebered who it is or what it is supposed to be doing today.
Tim Tyler
> On Jul 7, 3:39 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The above is irrelevant. I answered your question about natural
> > selection by pointing out that both 'blind' and 'stupid' are
> > metaphorical descriptions of the *fact* that environments constrain
> > reproductive success (and do so, at least sometimes, differentially
> > based on the organism's genotype).
>
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html
> "...Many great theories are held together by chains of dubious
> metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified the hogwash
> surrounding evolutionary theory....
The "hogwash" in question?
The idea that natural selection is "the survival of those who survive"
-
which is a vacuous tautology.
Gould tries to fashion this into a neo-Darwinian straw man for him
to attack:
``Bethell's criticism applies to much of the technical literature in
evolutionary theory''
...but the result is utterly pathetic: Gould succeeds only in making
himself look stupid :-(
backspace
> >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html
> > "...Many great theories are held together by chains of dubious
> > metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified the hogwash
> > surrounding evolutionary theory....
> The "hogwash" in question?
> The idea that natural selection is "the survival of those who survive"
> which is a vacuous tautology.
> Gould tries to fashion this into a neo-Darwinian straw man for him
> to attack:
> ``Bethell's criticism applies to much of the technical literature in
> evolutionary theory''
>
> ...but the result is utterly pathetic: Gould succeeds only in making
> himself look stupid :-(
Gould tries to tell us in the article that "survival of the fittest"
isn't a tautology. My position on this is : Who said SoF?
IF the cat walked over a keyboard typing SoF then it isn't a tautology
because the cat had no intent. The same with
RS, who said Reproductive success? What is the motive behind the
term.
In any case the tautological thinking that Gould engages in is
demonstrated here:
http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com/
"[T]he 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.
Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
except by noting that the groups went extinct?
backspace
No, not evolution but natural selection. The word "evolution" in
contrast to NS isn't a logical impossibility but a very pleasing word.
It has a nice ring to it that we generally use to express our positive
towards our higher destiny intent.
What this intent has got to do with the concept of "species
transmutation" isn't clear. Because the issue isn't punk-eek or
gradualism but the mechanism wether fast or slow. Gould's punk-eek
confuses the issues because it deals with a perception of scale and
not the mechanism.
You must try and understand Gould's pragmatics. He actually considered
"natural selection" a rubbish term but was forced to use it because
none of his papers would have ever been published if he had come out
against it to strongly.
hersheyh
> On Jul 7, 3:39 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > After reading the above, can you tell me how the bumble bee worked out
> > > neural-net control theory from PID control theory. All control
> > > engineers begin with PID before learning neural-net. How does telling
> > > me about "reproductive success" explain this.
> > The above is irrelevant. �I answered your question about natural
> > selection by pointing out that both 'blind' and 'stupid' are
> > metaphorical descriptions of the *fact* that environments constrain
> > reproductive success (and do so, at least sometimes, differentially
> > based on the organism's genotype).
>
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html
> "...Many great theories are held together by chains of dubious
> metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified the hogwash
> surrounding evolutionary theory....
Focus and stop avoiding my question. Do environments constrain
reproductive successor or not? You can use *any* measure of
reproductive success you would like so long as you apply it
consistently and measure the *relative* reproductive success of two
*types* of organisms in the same species, holding environment constant
(or randomizing it if you have a large enough population of both
types.
>
> > That *differential* effect is
> > natural selection. �The non-differential constraint is selective
> > neutrality, which results in drift.
> > My point is that there is no *real* sight or smarts in the
> > environment. �Now the only question is whether or not *you* so "blind"
> > or "stupid" that you don't know what a "metaphor" is? �If you have
> > some problem with the idea that the environment constrains, sometimes
> > differentially, the reproductive success of the organisms that inhabit
> > that environment, such as thinking that environments have no effect of
> > reproductive success, this would be a good time to argue that point.
> > Otherwise, you are simply trying to avoid the answer by asking
> > tangential irrelevancies, hoping that that irrelevancy is some sort of
> > stumper.
>
> "Reproductive success" isn't a technical term,
Relative reproductive success is, indeed, a technical term that
produces a mathematical ratio that, technically, is called relative
fitness. One can use *any* measure of reproductive success as long as
you are consistent.
> it isn't a theory but a
> two word term which can be used by any signal sender to encode his
> specific intent to us signal receivers. What is the formal definition
> of some concept that you keep on calling RS ? Ashttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/ReproductiveSuccessdiscussed here I
> pointed out that there is no formal definition of what a RS is. Darwin
> never used the term and theories are always formally defined as
> noshellwell pointed out.
Tough shit. Reproduction exists. And different organisms are more or
less successful at it. I know that some homeschoolers are not taught
anything about reproduction except that it is bad and they shouldn't
engage in it. But it is not my task to teach you about the birds and
bees.
> Take the sentence "The father achieved reproductive success after
> deciding that he will start a family." �In this sentence we know that
> the father had a predetermined goal and on achieving it he obtained
> "success". Success is defined as achieving a goal. Do frogs have
> goals ?
Wrong question. The right one is "Do frogs reproduce?" If they do
(recently, not as well as in the past), the relative rate of success
at reproduction of frogs with different phenotypes can be measured.
No one cares that frogs reproduce. Every one but you recognizes that
fact. What matters to evolution is the *relative* reproductive
success of phenotypes within a population in a (specified or
randomized) environment. Not individuals. Not species. Different
phenotypes. Are you going to claim that "failure to reproduce" is
good and that that direction of change is what should be called
"reproductive success" because fucking and having kids is a bad thing
in your world?
> If a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it
> still be a success?
From an economic human viewpoint it would be a rousing success. From
the perspective of the calves with fetal alcohol syndrome, not so
much. But cows, of course, are currently *artificially* bred to
fulfill the goals of humans and not the goals of cows. Bovines in the
wild are not artificially bred and only reproduce to continue the
lineage of wild bovines. If they succeed, that is called "success".
If they fail, that is called "extinction".
> For who is a cow a "success". Lets presume there
> were no humans on earth, would the existence of frogs be a success
> from the point of view of a camel.
The only point of view that matters would be the frogs wrt the
reproduction of frogs. That the environment that favors frogs is not
the one that favors camels is irrelevant. One does not measure
relative reproductive success across species, but only for phenotypes
within species.
Cj
All definitions are tautologies, what's wrong with that? You have a
marked tendency to select words at random to use as pejoratives.
Neither Darwin nor Dawkins were speaking of race in the way that you are
using the word. You're apparently too dense to understand that. Since
you apparently haven't read the Origin of Species maybe you should try
it, it doesn't have any big words and can be understood by any normal
juvenile.
Cj
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Crap. "isn't", not "is". Duh.
backspace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype:
"..A phenotype is any observable characteristic of an organism, such
as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological
properties, or behavior. Phenotypes result from the expression of an
organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and
possible interactions between the two...."
Howard pick up a frog and point to me the exact spot that has been
formally defined as a "phenotype". Phenotype and genotype has a nice
ring to it, but what does it mean and who says so ? Don't argue from
authority show me where the formally derived established concept of a
phenotype genotype is. One can use these words in any context with
whatever
intent. Not so with F=ma a formally established theory.
Cj
Kermit
> On Jul 7, 9:46 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 11:16 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > posted by Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com>:
> > > >It's neither blind nor stupid. As I argue in
> > > >http://alife.co.uk/essays/evolution_sees/
> > > >sexual selection is not blind - but even if
> > > >you define natural selection so that it refers
> > > >only to death, and not differential reproductive
> > > >success, it is still not blind - male combat
> > > >involves selection by intelligent agents, well
> > > >capable of predicting the consequences of
> > > >their actions - and this process is part of
> > > >evolution by natural selection.
>
> > > So *part* of NS can be labeled not blind. That doesn't mean
> > > that a large part (the majority, IMHO) *is* blind, since
> > > such items as rogue bolides and advancing ice sheets, both
> > > of which impact differential survival and thus differential
> > > reproductive success, hardly qualify as anything else.
>
> > Right. Evolution is /gradually/ waking up.
>
> > At the moment it's still largely in the land of nod, and hasn't yet
> > remebered who it is or what it is supposed to be doing today.
>
> No, not evolution but natural selection. The word "evolution" in
> contrast to NS isn't a logical impossibility but a very pleasing word.
What is logically impossible, and what you find pleasing, are not
mutually exclusive. Natural selection exists, nor is there any reason
to think it is logically impossible (a dangerous undertaking for
anything which has so clearly been demonstrated to exist). These two
sentences of yours express several profound misunderstandings on your
part.
> It has a nice ring to it that we generally use to express our positive
> towards our higher destiny intent.
This isn't even a sentence. "Positive towards our higher destiny
intent" is not a noun, nor any sort of phrase that could be
substituted for one.
> What this intent has got to do with the concept of "species
> transmutation" isn't clear.
It's not clear what you're babbling about at any time.
> Because the issue isn't punk-eek or
> gradualism but the mechanism wether fast or slow. Gould's punk-eek
> confuses the issues because it deals with a perception of scale and
> not the mechanism.
No, Tim Tyler seems to be saying that the process of natural selection
has elements that are intelligent (sexual selection for instance), and
that it make sense to speak of NS as not being blind.(1) I haven't
decided yet whether I agree with him, but it's one of several
intelligent dissensions from the assertion that "NS is blind".
>
> You must try and understand Gould's pragmatics.
Don't be a pretentious ass. (That's a metaphor. Literally speaking,
you are a pretentious ape.) You want to discuss Gould's scientific
claims, which are derived from the meaning of his words. Pragmatics
has nothing to do with it.
I infer from your posts that you cannot refute the evidence supporting
mainstream evolutionary science. Is that your intent?
> He actually considered
> "natural selection" a rubbish term but was forced to use it because
> none of his papers would have ever been published if he had come out
> against it to strongly.
Cites? I've read all of his popular science books, I believe, but
don't remember him saying anything like that.
(1) I note that I am not considered blind, and yet most of me doesn't
see at all - only my eyes, and arguably my brain.
Kermit
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> > Is Dawkins trying to tell us that Darwin's intent that the
> > preservation of white races above blacks was the greatest idea devised
> > by the mind of man ?
> >
>
> All definitions are tautologies, what's wrong with that? You have a
> marked tendency to select words at random to use as pejoratives.
> Neither Darwin nor Dawkins were speaking of race in the way that you are
> using the word. You're apparently too dense to understand that. Since
> you apparently haven't read the Origin of Species maybe you should try
> it, it doesn't have any big words and can be understood by any normal
> juvenile.
> Cj
Come now CJ we all know Darwin as virtually all white people back then
considered blacks as inferior
Darwin in OoS:
"..If there exist savages so barbarous as never to think of the
inherited
character of the offspring of their domestic animals, yet any one
animal
particularly useful to them, for any special purpose, would be
carefully
preserved during famines and other accidents, to which savages are so
liable, and such choice animals would thus generally leave more
offspring
than the inferior ones; so that in this case there would be a kind of
unconscious selection going on. We see the value set on animals even
by
the barbarians of Tierra del Fuego, by their killing and devouring
their
old women, in times of dearth, as of less value than their dogs...."
"....These slight proportional differences, due to the laws of growth
and variation, are not of the slightest use or importance to most
species. But it will have been otherwise with the nascent giraffe,
considering its probable habits of life; for those individuals which
had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more
elongated than usual, would generally have survived.
These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the
same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the
same manner; while the individuals less favoured in the same respects
will have been the most liable to perish......"
Question:
Other than noting that the individuals were less favored , how was
their perishability measured ?
Answer:
Darwin defined them as being less favored thus they were liable to
perish. Because they were liable to perish they were less favored.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Cj <C...@mist.net>:
....and getting it wrong.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>On Jul 7, 10:29 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype:
>"..A phenotype is any observable characteristic of an organism, such
>as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological
>properties, or behavior. Phenotypes result from the expression of an
>organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and
>possible interactions between the two...."
>
>Howard pick up a frog and point to me the exact spot that has been
>formally defined as a "phenotype".
This is such a graphic illustration of general and specific
ignorance, plus the inability to understand written English,
that it should probably be included in the FAQ.
BS, why don't you go find a globe and point out to the group
the exact spot on it that has been formally defined as the
Earth? Or point, on a photo of any person you choose, the
exact spot on it that has been formally defined as a human
being.
Idiot.
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> > Is Dawkins trying to tell us that Darwin's intent that the
> > preservation of white races above blacks was the greatest idea devised
> > by the mind of man ?
> >
>
> All definitions are tautologies, what's wrong with that? You have a
> marked tendency to select words at random to use as pejoratives.
> Neither Darwin nor Dawkins were speaking of race in the way that you are
> using the word. You're apparently too dense to understand that. Since
> you apparently haven't read the Origin of Species maybe you should try
> it, it doesn't have any big words and can be understood by any normal
> juvenile.
> Cj
Come now CJ we all know Darwin as virtually all white people back then
considered blacks as inferior
Darwin in OoS:
"..If there exist savages so barbarous as never to think of the
inherited
character of the offspring of their domestic animals, yet any one
animal
particularly useful to them, for any special purpose, would be
carefully
preserved during famines and other accidents, to which savages are so
liable, and such choice animals would thus generally leave more
offspring
than the inferior ones; so that in this case there would be a kind of
unconscious selection going on. We see the value set on animals even
by
the barbarians of Tierra del Fuego, by their killing and devouring
their
old women, in times of dearth, as of less value than their dogs...."
Darwin in OoS:
Woland
Any distinct characteristic of the frog with a genetic basis would be
its phenotype. The genotype is simply the distinct genetic
composition that gives rise to the phenotype. An example of this in
humans involves blood type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_group
So you see, your genotype could be AO if you those genes. However,
since A is dominant to O your phenotype would be A because only the A
proteins are being expressed. If you had the BO genotype then
similarly, you would express the B phenotype as O is recessive.
We don't have to know the etymology of these terms to use and
understand them as they always mean the same thing. I know you refuse
to understand this, but its the truth dude.
Woland
Uh, no. They would be relatively less favored if it were shown that
they had fewer offspring that survived to reproduce. Do you disagree
with this?
Do you disagree that this will lead to the genes that are favored
becoming more prevalent in the population?
If not, then you don't disagree with the fact that what we call
'natural selection' occurs.
Cj
> Cj wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> Is Dawkins trying to tell us that Darwin's intent that the
>>> preservation of white races above blacks was the greatest idea devised
>>> by the mind of man ?
>>>
>> All definitions are tautologies, what's wrong with that? You have a
>> marked tendency to select words at random to use as pejoratives.
>> Neither Darwin nor Dawkins were speaking of race in the way that you are
>> using the word. You're apparently too dense to understand that. Since
>> you apparently haven't read the Origin of Species maybe you should try
>> it, it doesn't have any big words and can be understood by any normal
>> juvenile.
>> Cj
>
> Come now CJ we all know Darwin as virtually all white people back then
> considered blacks as inferior
>
we all know?
Back at the dictionary again I see. Why don't you give it a break,
you're struggling in a fight you lost 150 years ago.
An Ad Hominem assault against Darwin is pointless. Today we use reason
rather than faith.
Woland
Go back school, dumbdumb.
Tim Tyler
> In any case the tautological thinking that Gould engages in is
> demonstrated here:http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com/
>
> "[T]he 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.
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
For example, large animals are usually "extinction-prone" - in the
case of impacts by large meteorites.
--
hersheyh
> On Jul 7, 10:29 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype:
> "..A phenotype is any observable characteristic of an organism, such
> as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological
> properties, or behavior. Phenotypes result from the expression of an
> organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and
> possible interactions between the two...."
>
> Howard pick up a frog and point to me the exact spot that has been
> formally defined as a "phenotype".
Any feature of a frog that is detectable by any method and that both
you and I can observe would be an example of a phenotype. The frog's
soul or 'elan vital', for example, would not be a phenotype since it
is not detectable by any method.
> Phenotype and genotype has a nice
> ring to it, but what does it mean and who says so ?
Phenotype means exactly what was said in the definition you
presented. Like all words, phenotype was coined by someone, but who
did so doesn't matter, since words, like the ideas they represent, can
change over time. Phenotype and genotype were coined by one of the
early geneticists at the turn of the last century. But what matters
now is the current meaning of these terms, not ancient history.
Genotype is the particular sequence of a stretch of DNA. That was not
its original meaning, since DNA was not known to be the genetic
material at the time the term was invented and one could only observe
those features of the organism's genome that had a significant
observable effect on phenotype. The current meaning is broader in
that it includes *any* feature of sequence of a particular stretch of
DNA. Because of sequencing, *any* difference in sequence in a stretch
of DNA is observable today.
> Don't argue from
> authority show me where the formally derived established concept of a
> phenotype genotype is.
What matters is the current meaning, not the derivation.
> One can use these words in any context with
> whatever intent.
No you can't. You can only use them where the current meaning
applies. I cannot use the word phenotype to describe your soul. I
cannot use the word genotype to describe your mental illness unless I
can ascribe that illness to a particular stretch of DNA.
backspace
> > Because the issue isn't punk-eek or
> > gradualism but the mechanism wether fast or slow. Gould's punk-eek
> > confuses the issues because it deals with a perception of scale and
> > not the mechanism.
> No, Tim Tyler seems to be saying that the process of natural selection
> has elements that are intelligent (sexual selection for instance), and
> that it make sense to speak of NS as not being blind.(1) I haven't
> decided yet whether I agree with him, but it's one of several
> intelligent dissensions from the assertion that "NS is blind".
What about stupid now. Miller said NS is blind, yet "pushes and
pulls". If NS pushes and pulls how would it do this if it is also
stupid, wouldn't it perhaps push in the wrong direction ?
See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EvolutionDiscussion and
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/KennethMillerPragmatics
Ye Old One
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In any case the tautological thinking that Gould engages in is
>demonstrated here:
>http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com/
>
>"[T]he 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.
>Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
>except by noting that the groups went extinct?
Sure, they are the sort of animals that rely on a fairly specialized
environment. Take the Giant Panda as an example, it would not take
much of a change to push it over the edge into extinction. This is
mainly because its food source is so specialized.
--
Bob.
raven1
The koala would be another good example.
Ye Old One
Very true.
--
Bob.
backspace
> >"[T]he 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.
> >Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> >except by noting that the groups went extinct?
>
> Sure, they are the sort of animals that rely on a fairly specialized
> environment. Take the Giant Panda as an example, it would not take
> much of a change to push it over the edge into extinction. This is
> mainly because its food source is so specialized.
And this explains the panda's "reproductively successful" choice of
neural control instead of fuzzy and PID control for
its brain in what way ?
Ye Old One
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And that post demonstrated just how stupid you are.
--
Bob.
Woland
Once more, in English please. Actually, try some other language and
we'll translate from there.
raven1
What on Earth are you babbling about?
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 9, 11:18 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
Did you intend this question to have an actual meaning and
to be relevant to the statements to which it was supposedly
a response? If so, you failed.
backspace
> has elements that are intelligent (sexual selection for instance), and
> that it make sense to speak of NS as not being blind.(1) I haven't
> decided yet whether I agree with him, but it's one of several
> intelligent dissensions from the assertion that "NS is blind".
What is a sexual selection? Selection comes from the Latin word
"selectus" which 2000 years ago meant only one thing: Somebody made a
decision. But Wilkins says ".... selection doesn't mean that we
necessarily have consciousness in mind ....." Then you can't use the
word "selection" it's that simple, whatever it is you people are
trying to say , making language undefined is not the way to do it.
Darwin tells us what his intent is with the term:
"...Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestication in one
sex and
become hereditarily attached to that sex, so no doubt it will be under
nature. Thus it is rendered possible for the two sexes to be modified
through natural selection in relation to different habits of life, as
is
sometimes the case; or for one sex to be modified in relation to the
other
sex, as commonly occurs. This leads me to say a few words on what I
have
called sexual selection.
This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence in
relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a
struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally
the males, for the possession of the other sex.
The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no
offspring. Sexual selection is,
therefore, less rigorous than natural selection....."
And then of course we have his usual tautologies that those which are
best fitted will leave more offspring. Why? because they are better
fitted. But how was their fitness measured - by leaving more
offspring....
"...Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted
for their places in nature,
will leave most progeny......"
And here Darwin defines sexual selection:
".....This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence
in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on
a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males,
for the possession of the other sex......"
Lets cut to the truism: Male monkeys struggle among themselves to mate
with the female monkey. What has this go
to do with the word "selectus" as used by Augustus 2000 years ago?
Woland
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 8, 6:33 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No, Tim Tyler seems to be saying that the process of natural selection
>> has elements that are intelligent (sexual selection for instance), and
>> that it make sense to speak of NS as not being blind.(1) I haven't
>> decided yet whether I agree with him, but it's one of several
>> intelligent dissensions from the assertion that "NS is blind".
>
>
>What is a sexual selection?
You wouldn't know, never having been selected.
<snip>