Theory of gradual evolution finally on Wikipedia
backspace
Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
TongueSpeaker
=== Theory of gradual evolution ===
Darwin used the term '''Theory of gradual evolution''' only once.
''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.''
=== Theory of evolution ===
Darwin used the term '''Theory of evolution''' only once.
''If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have
really started into life at once, the
fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural
selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms, all
of which are descended from some one progenitor, must have been an
extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long
before their modified descendants. But we continually overrate the
perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because
certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain
stage, that they did not exist before that stage. ''
backspace
We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he derives for us from first
principles the non-linear control algorithms keeping the finch stable
Phil
stfu, is there?
LloydBrown
I can only assume you just wrote this yourself. If so, have you even
_read_ wikipedia's guidelines? It doesn't, of course, cite any
references. It doesn't refer the reader to any other entries. It
redefines an already existing definition. You don't even have to read
the content to realize that it's a poor entry and won't stay intact
long.
Kermit
> We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> TongueSpeaker
Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.
Darwin is not the ultimate authority.
Science has continued since Darwin's day; there is more data to
explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.
You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
that evidence.
You have not offered any other testable model that fits the data.
What is your problem with that?
Kermit
chris thompson
> We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution
How nice for you. Have you finally climaxed in your intellectual
Onanism?
Chris
backspace
> On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> > TongueSpeaker
> Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.
Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
> Darwin is not the ultimate authority.
Says who? Eldredge thinks Uncle Darwin was a genius.
> Science has continued since Darwin's day; there is more data to
Again appeal to abstract authority.
> explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.
What was the original theory then?
> You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
> that evidence.
What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.
tex...@gmail.com
Ben Standeven
> On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> > > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> > > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> > > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> > > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> > > TongueSpeaker
> > Darwin is not the ultimate authority.
>
> Says who? Eldredge thinks Uncle Darwin was a genius.
>
So? Eldredge is not the ultimate authority either.
[...]
> > explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.
>
> What was the original theory then?
The biggest difference: no population genetics back then.
> > You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
> > that evidence.
>
> What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
>
According to Wiktionary:
| evidence (uncountable)
|
| 1) Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.
| 2) (law) Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged
| matters of fact in a trial.
> Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
> was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
> Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.
I would suggest stating an actual theory instead of random quotes.
Rich Townsend
Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no cites,
and no purpose.
backspace
> Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no cites,
> and no purpose.
It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
"..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..."
Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
Woland
You have serious mental problems. Seek help.
theSalamander
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194631354.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 7:14 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>> Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no
>> cites,
>> and no purpose.
>
> It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> "..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..."
> Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
Not really - it's more to do with the fact that their genetic
characteristics made them better adapted to survival in their environment.
> and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead
Or....because their genetic characteristics made them less adapted to
survival in their environment against those with "fitter" traits for
survival.
> and
> therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
Would it be SO much trouble for you to learn something about evolution
before attacking it?
Kermit
> On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> > > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> > > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> > > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> > > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> > > TongueSpeaker
> > Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.
>
> Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
you before.
If your atavistic brain does not allow you to keep up with normal word
play, you should still accept that normal human beings communicate
this way. It is dishonest to do otherwise.
>
> > Darwin is not the ultimate authority.
>
> Says who? Eldredge thinks Uncle Darwin was a genius.
>
There are no ultimate authorities in science. That's how it works. Any
testable model which fits the data is true.
> > Science has continued since Darwin's day; there is more data to
>
> Again appeal to abstract authority.
No; normal communication. When you start feeling left out of
conversations?
>
> > explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.
>
> What was the original theory then?
The biggest change was understanding the quantized nature of genes.
Darwin knew that characteristics were largely inheritable, and
imperfectly so, but he did not know of Mendel's work, contemporary
with his.
>
> > You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
> > that evidence.
>
> What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
Better yet, I'll list some:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
>
> Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
> was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
> Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.
No. It's dishonest and illiterate. But it's already clear that you
can't and won't play well with others.
And your babbling, BTW, isn't talking by any stretch of the
imagination. It can be music, however. But Louie Armstrong did it
better in the first known recording of scat singing.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 9, 7:14 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no cites,
> > and no purpose.
>
> It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide.
Looking it up on Wikipedia takes you to a decent introductory article
on the subject.
> They keep on telling
> us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory.
You poor, brain-damaged loon. Telling you *about the theory *is
stating the theory.
> But
> of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> "..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..."
> Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
No, they survived (or more clearly, reproduced more successfully)
because they had traits which were largely inheritable and which
improved their chances of reproducing. The conditions of the
environment shape the species. How is this a tautology?
This is very different from:
Traits are inherited from adaptive behavior of the parents.
Inheritable traits are immutable.
Inheritable traits change randomly.
The traits of a species are the result of hybridization.
Traits were given to the species a few thousand years ago, and have
not significantly changed since.
These have all been proposed, and have been proven wrong.
None of them are tautologies, either.
You really do need help. You are seriously crippled, socially and
cognitively.
Kermit,
who knows that English was not the original language.
LloydBrown
> Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
> was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
> Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.
I notice you didn't respond to my comments about a lack of cites by
providing cites. You also didn't comply with wikipedia requirements
by linking to at least one other article. You don't intend to make
any of these corrections, do you?
Inez
You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
description of the characteristics of animals who survive. It is a
theory that the differential survival of animals with different
characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
animals. Do you see the difference?
backspace
> > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > "..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..."
> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
> You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
> description of the characteristics of animals who survive.
And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
not even wrong.
> It is a
> theory that the differential survival of animals with different
> characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
> animals. Do you see the difference?
Lets rephrase:
I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
conjecture:
The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
animals.
Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?
wf3h
> >
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.
god did it.
clear?
>
wf3h
what he actually proposed was differential reproduction as a mechanism
for speciation
not that an islamist/christianist fanatic who believes his scriptures
are literally true understands language at all...
backspace
> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide.
>
> Looking it up on Wikipedia takes you to a decent introductory article
> on the subject.
What exactly is the subject? Are you refering to the word "evolution"
or "Theory of Evolution". The word "evolution" has essentially become
undefined. In contrast "Theory of evolution" is very specific - a
theory. I just want to know what Theory of Evolution are you refering
to and who's theory is this?
> > They keep on telling
> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory.
> You poor, brain-damaged loon. Telling you *about the theory *is
> stating the theory.
What theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution tells us to read
DArwin's book for theory of evolution, so that I have done - posted
Darwin's actual theory. What is wrong with this?
> > But
> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > "..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..."
> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
> No, they survived (or more clearly, reproduced more successfully)
Darwin didn't use the word "success", "random" or "random mutation"
> because they had traits which were largely inheritable and which
> improved their chances of reproducing.
All traits are inheritable for if it wasn't inheritable the traits
wouldn't be there in the first place. So lets rephrase:"... because
they had traits which improved their chances of reproducing..." This
is a tautology, obviously good traits will improve the chances of
reproduction, this doesn't explain where they got these traits to
begin with.
> The conditions of the environment shape the species.
No, the conditions don't "shape" anything. The response of an organism
to any particular environmental condition is a pattern not a design -
there is no will or motive. You are confusing patterns in nature with
designs in nature. You are using "shape" in the selection, design
sense - this is your intent. If your intent was in the pattern sense
you would not have used the word "shape". "Shape", "filtered",
"sorted" and "selection" means nothing without intent.
>How is this a tautology?
That depends what you define as a tautology. Evolution, "selection" ,
"design", choice, decision has become undefined as the materialists
make the meaning of language itself undefined.
backspace
<notarealem...@nospamthanks.co.nospam> wrote:
> > and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
>
> Would it be SO much trouble for you to learn something about evolution
> before attacking it?
Which depends on what you define as "evolution" - what is evolution?
Or more specifically what is the difference between Darwin's(note
Darwin not Wilkins or Harshman) Theory of Evolution ?
Let just restate Darwin's conjecture: By slow and gradual steps a
monkey(chimp,bonobo, common ancestor or anything apish that will make
happy) transforms into a human. Is this what you mean by Evolution?
Now what it is the intent with calling this process "evolution" - why
do we use the word "evolution"?
What are we really trying to say here. Are we trying to say that
mankind is more "advanced" than an ape and that this species
transformation moves towards some higher goal. Because one meaning of
the word evolution is progress, so if it is progress to go from a an
ape to a human - according to whom
is this progress.
I means lets presume there were no humans and a donkey turned into a
wombat - would the wombat no consider itself and "improvement"?
backspace
> > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > "..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..."
> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
> what he actually proposed was differential reproduction as a mechanism
> for speciation
Uncle Darwin our higher algebra clueless dimwit whom Eldredge thinks
was a genius never used the word "differential". Differential means
non-similar , what is your intent with it and what passages can you
quote from Origin that will clarify your intent if Darwin had the same
intent you have with "differential".
William Wingstedt
Now you've got it inside out. Overall changes in the population of
animals leads to their survival. Perhaps you have your shoes on the
wrong feet?
backspace
> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
>
> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
> you before.
Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".
> > What was the original theory then?
> The biggest change was understanding the quantized nature of genes.
> Darwin knew that characteristics were largely inheritable, and
> imperfectly so, but he did not know of Mendel's work, contemporary
> with his.
The reply is a red herring. Darwin didn't know about genes. I want to
know what was Darwin's theory of evolution since we are told the whole
time about "random mutations" in genes and told in peer reviewed
journals how Darwin managed to figure this out. But Darwin never said
this it was an author in 1910, why don't we credit this author? Well
why not ? What is this about Darwin the whole time. Oh, I forgot it is
about materialism not Darwinism and Darwin is become a bit of an
embarrasment to the materialist religious movement. Materialism is the
first general religious movement that actually thinks it can redefine
the meaning of language itself. (yes, yes I know this
appeal to abstract authority, but we all know my intent is the
materialists. Kermit's intent on the other hand is that if you don't
believe in his religion of materialism then you can't provide well
reasoned descriptions)
> > What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
>
> Better yet, I'll list some:
> Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
> simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
> transitional series.
It is the "fossil record" not evidence. You are refering to the first
common ancestor which is begging the question. First we are told there
was a first living cell or CA and then we are told that because there
was a first living CA , therefore the species diverged.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 10, 12:51 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > > "..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..."
> > > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
> > what he actually proposed was differential reproduction as a mechanism
> > for speciation
>
> Uncle Darwin our higher algebra clueless dimwit
Why on earth should Darwin's self-confessed lack of knowledge of
algebra be of any relevance at all to his contributions to science as
a biologist? He was a first-rate scientist whose contribution would be
widely recognised even if had not formulated his theory of evolution
by natural selection.
> whom Eldredge thinks
> was a genius never used the word "differential".
So fucking what?
> Differential means
> non-similar , what is your intent with it and what passages can you
> quote from Origin that will clarify your intent if Darwin had the same
> intent you have with "differential".
Darwin made his "intent" perfectly clear to anyone not blindly
determined not to understand. Generations of evolutionary scientists
have made their "intent" perfectly clear to anyone not blindly
determined not to understand.
Why do you think that boasting about your lack of ability to read for
comprehension is any sort of argument?
Silly little man.
RF
Inez
> On Nov 10, 5:43 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > > "..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..."
> > > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
> > You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
> > description of the characteristics of animals who survive.
>
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.
Your insistence that the theory of evolution is not defined is
chidlish and stupid, and fools no one, not even you. Get over it.
> > It is a
> > theory that the differential survival of animals with different
> > characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
> > animals. Do you see the difference?
>
> Lets rephrase:
> I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> conjecture:
> The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> animals.
Let's rephrase- Backspace is afraid of evolution, since it proves his
bizare theory of divinity incorrect. He therefore insists on sticking
his fingers in his ears and saying "lalalalalanotlistening."
> Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?
Grow up.
Inez
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.
>
> > It is a
> > theory that the differential survival of animals with different
> > characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
> > animals. Do you see the difference?
>
> Lets rephrase:
> I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> conjecture:
> The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> animals.
>
> Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?
Note also that you say that first say the ToE is undefined and demand
a definition, and then when given one claim that such a definition is
meaningless because I gave it to you, and I am not an authority. The
third leg in your stool of stupidity, which isn't evidenced here but
appears in other posts, is when someone gives you a scientific
definition from an authority, is you claim that the "intent" cannot be
known. There is no penetrating your clue proof shield. Any possible
information is rejected from your so-called brain.
All this amounts to is a refusal to have a conversation, which would
be fine by me but it's puzzling why you're here. No one is going to
be convinced by you arguing that the ToE doesn't exist. Even the
other creationists on this site agree that the ToE is an actual theory
that exists and is understandable. Why are you so much denser than
everyone else?
backspace
> > Lets rephrase:
> > I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> > conjecture:
> > The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> > animals.
> > Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?
> Note also that you say that first say the ToE is undefined and demand
> a definition, and then when given one claim that such a definition is
> meaningless because I gave it to you, and I am not an authority.
And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
are quoting. And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
to tell me where did you get your theory from? We need to give credit
to this author and how this author derived his theory from first
principles...."
Berlinski asks for example that the concept of "fitness" be derived
from first principles in Black Mischief
p.277
'..In general, trouble arises simply because the connection between
biological traits and fitness is never derived from first principles.
If the pig were to be born with wheels mounted on ball bearings
instead of trotters, would it be better off on some scale of porcine
fitness? No one knows, although some guesses are possible..."
p.294
I have spoken ...now of a specific protein. If any protein will do,
the odds improve. In a uniform
probability space , it is certain that one among the possible events
will occur. The British biologist Peter Medawar has seized upon this
point...and went in the wrong direction with it.
<quoting medaware>
In the games of whist or bridge any one particular hand is just as
unlikely to turn up as any other. If I pick up and inspect a certain
hand and then declare myself utterly amazed that such a hand should
have been dealt to me , considering the odds against it, I should be
told by those who have steeped themselves in mathmatical reasoning
that its prob. cannot be measured retrospectively, but only against a
prior expectation. For much the
same reason it seems to me profitless to speak of natural selection's
'generating improbability"...it is silly to be thunderstruck by the
evolution of organ A if we should have been just as thunderstruck by a
turn of events that had led to the evolution of B or C instead.
<End quoting medaware>
Berlinski says:"... Medawar is roughly right about probability. The
fallacy he refers to is retrospective specification and consists
precisely in reading back into an original sample space information
revealed only on the realization of the actual event. In poker , a
deal distributes n hands of equal probability: 1 in 2598160 as it
happens. This sample space is specified retrospectively if one hand in
particular is contrasted with 2598159 hands that remain; and
probabilities assigned to the partition so created. What appears
initially as one among equiprobable events becomes under RS an
improbable event in a sample space of only two points. It is
embarrassing for an author to point out such things...."
Here are the broad fallacies committed:
1) Retrospective specification
2) Confusing the cause with the effect. Harshman on NS says it is an
effect and then it is a cause. Chris Colby that NS is an effect but
what then is the cause? And Colby stating that SoF is "misleading" is
not exactly helping him out on NS because Darwin said SoF is a better
expression.
3) Tautologies - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TheoryOfGradualEvolution
4) Circular reasoning ... First common ancestor
5) Terms that nobody has defined are used - "differential reproductive
success" Who says so?
6) Semantic impossibilities "Triangular circles" and "natural
selection".
7) Confusing (patterns,detection) with (designs,selection) finches,
bacterial resistance, peppered moth, sexual selection stories are
patterns not designs. Even the creationists fail to see an obvious
pattern since their language with NS is confused as well.
8) Refusal to communicate intent in sentences that are grammatically
correct.
9) Words are undefined - evolution. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/SapolskyPragmatics
10) Unfalsifiable stories. The white moths get eaten - natural
selection. But if it was the black moths we would have been told the
same story.
11) Appeal to abstract authority... Mr.Sciense says so and he doesn't
exist.
12) Argument from authority. A materialist overlord and priest Miller
simply decrees that NS is "blind". But why is NS never "stupid"?
Mujin
news:1194690999.1...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 10, 5:43 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
>> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
>> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
>> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
>> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
>> > "..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..."
>> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
>> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
>> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
>> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
>
>> You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
>> description of the characteristics of animals who survive.
>
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.
It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
understanding the topic you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_th
ought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to say on
what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with it, or are
you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you begin speaking?
On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a word for people who
habitually make up something that agrees with them rather than finding out
the correct answer.
--
Bon nou mujin sei gan dan
Vend
<backspace>
Mr. Differential-survival-of-animals doesn't exist and therefore can't
lead anyone anywhere.
Appeal to Abstract Authority HaHa!
</backspace>
Vend
Vend
Inez
> On Nov 10, 4:56 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lets rephrase:
> > > I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> > > conjecture:
> > > The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> > > animals.
> > > Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?
> > Note also that you say that first say the ToE is undefined and demand
> > a definition, and then when given one claim that such a definition is
> > meaningless because I gave it to you, and I am not an authority.
>
> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
> are quoting.
No they don't. And until you tell me what the intent is with "pull"
"between" "two" "objects" "proportional" and "distances" are, you're
not even wrong.
See how it works? Nothing can get through your system of pretending
not to understand. Luckily it doesn't matter to anyone else if you
understand or not.
> And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
> to tell me where did you get your theory from?
Where I got the theory from is not relevant to whether it is correct
of not.
backspace
> It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
> understanding the topic you are talking about.
What topic is this now? I am asking for Darwin's theory of evolution
as defined by Darwin and Wikipedia and everybody around here are
refusing to provide it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolution...
> oughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
> So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to say on
> what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with it, or are
> you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you begin speaking?
What exactly is "evolutionary thought"? As posted during the first
edition of OoS *evolution* meant the unrolling of prefabricated
beings. The idea of animals changing into humans is probably as old
mankind itself. But this is an idea, a conjecture a flight of the
imagination - it is not a theory.
Why is it so difficult to understand that merely saying "Monkeys(or
common ancestors) turned into humans" doesn't make it so. You first
need to specify the problem and then only can you formulate a theory
instead Darwin formulated a tautology and called it a theory.
Free Lunch
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1194732775....@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 10, 8:27 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
>> understanding the topic you are talking about.
>
>What topic is this now? I am asking for Darwin's theory of evolution
>as defined by Darwin and Wikipedia and everybody around here are
>refusing to provide it.
Darwin's theory of evolution by variation and natural selection is quite
out of date. Why do you want it? It has been improved in a number of
ways as evidence has been collected about evolution.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolution...
>> oughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
>
>> So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to say on
>> what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with it, or are
>> you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you begin speaking?
>
>What exactly is "evolutionary thought"? As posted during the first
>edition of OoS *evolution* meant the unrolling of prefabricated
>beings. The idea of animals changing into humans is probably as old
>mankind itself. But this is an idea, a conjecture a flight of the
>imagination - it is not a theory.
>Why is it so difficult to understand that merely saying "Monkeys(or
>common ancestors) turned into humans" doesn't make it so. You first
>need to specify the problem and then only can you formulate a theory
>instead Darwin formulated a tautology and called it a theory.
The evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with the other great
apes. Your refusal to accept that evidence does not change the evidence.
Cj
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.
>
You have repeated this statement at least a dozen times in the last 6
months. It is nonsense and rather stupid. It has also been answered
properly a number of times, usually with well deserved insolence. I
appreciate your intellectual limitations and inability to reason but
repetition of stupidity doesn't improve it. FOAD
peter
> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
> are quoting.
I certainly don't and I suspect no one else here does either. Who is
the "we" to whom you refer? AFAIK, only you are doing any quoting
above so perhaps you could clarify what other individuals are
involved. And I suspect that you are actually not quoting anyone at
all, at least I hope so, since the statement quoted is unclear in
meaning and likely incorrect. Forces, such as gravitational,
electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear, generally decrease with
distance rather than increasing as in your quote above. And it's
unclear what "distances" (plural) are involved with only two objects?
Are you implying that each object has some intrinsic distance? That's
not the usual usage, but you seem to have some unique usages of
language so perhaps you could clarify.
Mujin
news:1194732775....@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 10, 8:27 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
>> understanding the topic you are talking about.
>
> What topic is this now? I am asking for Darwin's theory of evolution
> as defined by Darwin and Wikipedia and everybody around here are
> refusing to provide it.
Both Wikipedia and other posters in this thread have in fact provided you
with the theory of evolution; you just refuse to read it. Right at the
beginning of the first Wikipedia page I offered:
"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a
population from one generation to the next."
This process of evolution is the phenomenon that was noted by scholars as
early as Anaxiamander, and many attempts have been made to explain how it
works.
Later in the same paragraph we see Darwin's theory of natural selection,
which he thought explained the phenomenon of evolution:
"Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are
helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful
traits to become more rare. This occurs because organisms with
advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the
next generation."
You have no doubt noticed that Darwin himself said nothing much about
genes. That's because he was unaware of Mendel's work on genetics which
had emerged at about the same time as Darwin published his theory - Darwin
thought that blended inheritance made sense, and this is reflected in The
Origin of Species. Hardly anyone was aware of Mendel's work until 1900,
and when it re-emerged there was dispute between Mendelian geneticists and
Darwinian evolutionists. It wasn't until Ronald Fischer in the 1930s that
Mendelian inheritance and Darwin's natural selection were combined in the
modern evolutionary synthesis:
"According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s,
genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is
now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and
recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis).
Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles
between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow,
and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are
reproductively isolated, for example by geographical barriers."
(from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Tenets_of_the_mo
dern_synthesis )
You claim that Wikipedia says nothing about what the central ideas of the
theory of evolution are or who came up with them, yet the three articles I
offer you contain excellent summaries *including* the names of the
scientists primarily responsible for developing the ideas.
Clearly you didn't read very far. Or perhaps you didn't bother to read
anything about evolution at all, since you had already decided what must be
there.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolution.
>> .. oughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
>
>> So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to
>> say on what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with
>> it, or are you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you
>> begin speaking?
>
> What exactly is "evolutionary thought"?
Evolutionary thought is, obviously, that body of thought which encompasses
ideas about and logical arguments for evolution. In the case of the
article I offered you, it is a history of the observation that evolution
occurs (an observation that goes back at least to the 6th Century BCE), and
a history of attempts to explain scientifically why evolution occurs.
You have said before that English is not your first language. I
sympathize, since I know how hard it is to operate in a foreign language no
matter how fluent you may be. I suggest that you consider taking remedial
lessons since your ability to actually understand native English appears to
be weak in some contexts.
> As posted during the first
> edition of OoS *evolution* meant the unrolling of prefabricated
> beings.
You may notice that Darwin didn't use the word evolution in his original
edition of the Origin of Species. At the time Darwin wrote, the word
evolution was already firmly established as referring to the production or
emergence of some end product - the evolution of hydrogen gas during
electrolysis of water, or the evolution of a plant from its seed, for
example. Darwin simply extended the biological meaning to refer to the
emergence of one species from another.
> The idea of animals changing into humans is probably as old
> mankind itself. But this is an idea, a conjecture a flight of the
> imagination - it is not a theory.
So? The mythological - and invariably magical - creation of humans from
animal stock is not the root of Darwin's concept of natural selection.
Darwin simply observed a phenomenon in nature and proposed an explanation
based on what he knew of biology. This explanation proved powerful in the
process of understanding the relationships between organisms, especially in
understanding the relationship between modern organisms and the fossils
then being excavated at an enormous rate, so it was adopted by biologists
of Darwin's time so rapidly that in the 6th edition of the Origin of
Species he was able to say
"At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some
form."
Now, most Creationists claim that the only real reason to accept the theory
of evolution is the fact that it helps atheism make sense, but considering
that nearly all naturalists/biologists of Darwin's time were Christian the
only logical answer is that they found the theory persuasive in the face of
the evidence available.
> Why is it so difficult to understand that merely saying "Monkeys(or
> common ancestors) turned into humans" doesn't make it so.
Thankfully, that's not what the theory of evolution says.
> You first
> need to specify the problem and then only can you formulate a theory
> instead Darwin formulated a tautology and called it a theory.
No Creationist has yet successfully demonstrated on the basis of logic that
Darwin's proposed theory of evolution is a tautology. Perhaps you can be
the first, but I doubt it.
Grandbank
You know, I was just about to go throw some gasoline into the
woodstove but I guess I'll stay here instead.
KP
Cj
news:1194694227....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 10:23 pm, "theSalamander"
> <notarealem...@nospamthanks.co.nospam> wrote:
>> > and
>> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
>> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
>>
>> Would it be SO much trouble for you to learn something about evolution
>> before attacking it?
>
> Which depends on what you define as "evolution" - what is evolution?
> Or more specifically what is the difference between Darwin's(note
> Darwin not Wilkins or Harshman) Theory of Evolution ?
>
"what is the difference between Darwin's Theory of Evolution?"
That doesn't make much sense, but then few things you write
do make any sense. Is it too difficult for you to finish a sentence?
>
> Let just restate Darwin's conjecture: By slow and gradual steps a
> monkey(chimp,bonobo, common ancestor or anything apish that will make
> happy) transforms into a human. Is this what you mean by Evolution?
> Now what it is the intent with calling this process "evolution" - why
> do we use the word "evolution"?
Incorrect restatement and nothing 'transforms' into a human, a nonsense
assertion. The intent of evolution as a term is pretty obvious if you have
read anything about the topic. Darwin's evolution is a theory of variation
and the consequences in terms of the origin of species.
> What are we really trying to say here. Are we trying to say that
> mankind is more "advanced" than an ape and that this species
> transformation moves towards some higher goal. Because one meaning of
> the word evolution is progress, so if it is progress to go from a an
> ape to a human - according to whom
> is this progress.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Evolution has absolutely no
goal, it's something that happens as a consequence of a number of
biological factors. Species are different, advanced is your
misunderstanding
of the species concept. I know of no biological scientist who equates
evolution
with progress, biologically the terms are totally unrelated and irrelevant.
In
fact evolution is about biological change. Do you understand that?
>
> I means lets presume there were no humans and a donkey turned into a
> wombat - would the wombat no consider itself and "improvement"?
>
You have suggested a great number of silly and biologically impossible
ideas in your postings. They clearly demonstrate your ignorance of biology,
evolution, genetics and logic. Most rational individuals don't waste a lot
of effort repeatedly writing nonsense about things they cannot comprehend.
You have made the propagation of silly statements your career. I cannot
understand why anyone would repeatedly make a public fool of himself.
I am not denigrating ignorance, that's merely a lack of knowledge, but your
willful ignorance is rather disgusting... you are a waste of opposable
thumbs.
Cj
Cory Albrecht
> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
> are quoting. And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
> to tell me where did you get your theory from? We need to give credit
> to this author and how this author derived his theory from first
> principles...."
I don't know whom we are supposedly quoting, however, I do know that
things like gravity are _inversely_ proportional to the square of the
distance (*singular*) between the two objects.
IOW, even though I don't know the name of the person who first published
this relationship, I still know the science better than you do.
Vend
Damn google.
Clothaire
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>backspace wrote, On 10/11/07 12:39 PM:
>> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
>> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
>> are quoting. And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
>> to tell me where did you get your theory from? We need to give credit
>> to this author and how this author derived his theory from first
>> principles...."
>clip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Backspace is so hung up on _appeals from authority_ that he thinks
that if he can identify the authority and shoot it down or if there is
no identifiable authority, he has won the argument.
Clothaire
"If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need
not waste our energies in his defense."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "God in the Constitution" (1870)
backspace
Small typo, I should have said "inversely" and it can only be Newton I
am refering to.
peter
Hardly. Adding "inversely" fixes only one of the numerous errors in
the quoted statement. Some of the remaining errors are: 1) subject
and verb inconsistency (the pull ... are); 2) insufficient information
about the objects (do they have mass, electrical charge, or other
interaction such as the strong nuclear force?); 3) the reference to
"their distances" - objects do not have any inherent distance; perhaps
you meant the distance between their respective COGs.
But I suspect the main problem is that it is not a quote at all, but a
statement you made up. Otherwise please provide a citation for the
exact statement as quoted.
Even if the statement had been made correctly, there's no particular
reason why it would have to be a quote of Newton. It could also be a
quote of any of numerous instructors, textbook authors, or students
responding to a test question. And it could be in regard to Newtonian
Mechanics, Lagrangian Mechanics, or to Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity.
backspace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
"....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
called natural selection...."
First we need to know according to which individual is the above
paragraph? Lets just start off with the first issue: Darwin didn't
know about genes, so why is the above then called "natural selection".
In answering me you must refer to what Darwin actually said and
specifically the only place he came close to giving us his definition
of natural selection (notice I said close) - the quote Wikipedia
fraudulently misquoted and still is not fixed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Darwin.27s_hypothesis_section_fraudulent_misquotation
"..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection...."
To understand Darwin's intent(hopefully) we read the next paragraph:
".... But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce
great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through
the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the
hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a
power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to
man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art...."
Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
what impact does this have on NS? As you can see Darwin's usage of NS
is intertwined with SoF. And allow me to show you yet again the egg
dance Wilkins and Harshman has performed on this whole SoF issue:
Chris Colby:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel The
phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
John Wilkins:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e?tvc=1
"... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
interpretable...."
John Wilkins wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
"..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..."
John Harshman: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d891d6b4b9/85cc1b8964d9e435#85cc1b8964d9e435
On Jun 21, 3:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> > We don't know what Darwin's intent was with "survival of the fittest".
> That's not even Darwin's phrase, but Spencer's. And of course we know,
> at least those of us who can read. It's just an intended synonym for
> natural selection. I see you are changing the subject from natural
> selection and unconscious selection to artificial selection.
And thus Peter when I ask "who says so?" it is with good reason since
individuals establish theories.
wf3h
> On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> called natural selection...."
>
> First we need to know according to which individual is the above
> paragraph?
why? why is this relevant?
oh. it's not. OK. strike one.
> >
>
> Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> what impact does this have on NS?
nando, apparently, does not realize usage can change with time. take
the term 'slavery' for example
at one time backspace's intellectual predecessors...the
creationists...were generally pro slavery. we know this because they
formed the largest protestant church in american history....the s.
baptists.
yet today few s. baptists are pro slavery. so the term 'slavery' which
was used with great approval by creationists like backspace today is
regarded with disdain...
> >
> John Harshman:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d...
> On Jun 21, 3:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > We don't know what Darwin's intent was with "survival of the fittest".
> > That's not even Darwin's phrase, but Spencer's. And of course we know,
> > at least those of us who can read. It's just an intended synonym for
> > natural selection. I see you are changing the subject from natural
> > selection and unconscious selection to artificial selection.
>
> And thus Peter when I ask "who says so?" it is with good reason since
> individuals establish theories.
and theories have general features. that's why scientists can use
them. if they weren't understood, backspace wouldn't be able to use
his scientist invented computer to tell us that we should return to
the 14th century when slavery was all the rage in the christian world,
and 'god did it' was science.
wf3h
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> called natural selection...."
>
> First we need to know according to which individual is the above
> paragraph?
why? why is this relevant?
oh. it's not. OK. strike one.
> >
>
> Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> what impact does this have on NS?
nando, apparently, does not realize usage can change with time. take
the term 'slavery' for example
at one time backspace's intellectual predecessors...the
creationists...were generally pro slavery. we know this because they
formed the largest protestant church in american history....the s.
baptists.
yet today few s. baptists are pro slavery. so the term 'slavery' which
was used with great approval by creationists like backspace today is
regarded with disdain...
> >
> John Harshman:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d...
> On Jun 21, 3:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > We don't know what Darwin's intent was with "survival of the fittest".
> > That's not even Darwin's phrase, but Spencer's. And of course we know,
> > at least those of us who can read. It's just an intended synonym for
> > natural selection. I see you are changing the subject from natural
> > selection and unconscious selection to artificial selection.
>
> And thus Peter when I ask "who says so?" it is with good reason since
> individuals establish theories.
and theories have general features. that's why scientists can use
John Vreeland
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> opined:
>On Nov 9, 11:09 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
>>
>> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
>> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
>> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
>> you before.
>
>Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
>aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
>"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".
That might describe "good logic" but a "theory" must be testable and
must explain the observed data. A "hypothesis" would be the germ of a
theory which might explain the data observed so far but needs some
further testing. Furthermore, it must be possible to falsify a
theory. For example, if you could identify an organism that
sufficiently breaks the dual-nested hierarchy or life then biological
evolution would be falsified. The fact that no such organism has ever
been found is the main reason that biological evolution has triumphed.
Such a discovery would probably earn someone a Nobel prize.
>> > What was the original theory then?
>
>> The biggest change was understanding the quantized nature of genes.
>> Darwin knew that characteristics were largely inheritable, and
>> imperfectly so, but he did not know of Mendel's work, contemporary
>> with his.
>
>The reply is a red herring. Darwin didn't know about genes. I want to
>know what was Darwin's theory of evolution since we are told the whole
>time about "random mutations" in genes and told in peer reviewed
>journals how Darwin managed to figure this out. But Darwin never said
>this it was an author in 1910, why don't we credit this author? Well
>why not ? What is this about Darwin the whole time. Oh, I forgot it is
>about materialism not Darwinism and Darwin is become a bit of an
>embarrasment to the materialist religious movement. Materialism is the
>first general religious movement that actually thinks it can redefine
>the meaning of language itself. (yes, yes I know this
>appeal to abstract authority, but we all know my intent is the
>materialists. Kermit's intent on the other hand is that if you don't
>believe in his religion of materialism then you can't provide well
>reasoned descriptions)
Who what now?
Science is "materialistic" by definition. It deals with verifiable
facts and comprehensible causes. This separates it from religion
which is based on faith (instead of observation) and mystery (instead
of understanding). Is this what you are complaining about?
>> > What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
>>
>> Better yet, I'll list some:
>
>> Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
>> simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
>> transitional series.
>
>It is the "fossil record" not evidence. You are refering to the first
>common ancestor which is begging the question. First we are told there
>was a first living cell or CA and then we are told that because there
>was a first living CA , therefore the species diverged.
The nested hierarchy of life is the best evidence of biological
evolution. You should look it up. Until you understand it you won't
be able to say anything intelligent on the subject of biological
evolution. Look here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
--
John Vreeland (IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."--Martin Luther
The Enigmatic One
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
>> > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
>> > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
>> > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
>> > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
>> > TongueSpeaker
>
>> Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.
>
>Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
Holy shit!
You're really fucking stupid!
-Tim
Inez
But how can we know what he meant? What was his intent with all those
various words? We can safely ignore his theories because if someone
wrote "you have a green light" it would be ambiguous. Isn't that how
your argument goes?
peter
> On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> called natural selection...."
I see you've now switched from making up false statements and then
ascribing them to Newton to plucking text from Wikipedia and ascribing
it to me - even though I didn't write it nor have I ever included that
text in any post.
>
> First we need to know according to which individual is the above
> paragraph?
Not if our intent is to gain some understanding of the subject rather
than delving into past history. Do you have this same trouble when
using a dictionary to discover the meaning of some unfamiliar word?
The original author of most words isn't known and is hardly ever
included in the dictionary definition. Yet most of us still find
dictionaries to be useful tools in improving our understanding.
...
> Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> what impact does this have on NS?
None. NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
organisms and their environment in nature. An article on talkorigins
is unlikely to change either the organisms or their environment, so NS
will continue to operate just as it was before. OTOH, if Chris were
to somehow precipitate a nuclear exchange bringing on a nuclear winter
scenario then that would impact the operation of NS since it would
change the environment; probably leading to the extinction of many
species but also allowing some others to expand into new niches.
[Note that I am in no way suggesting that Chris has any plans or
desires to do this.]
backspace
> >> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
> >> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
> >> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
> >> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
> >> you before.
>
> >Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
> >aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
> >"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".
> That might describe "good logic" but a "theory" must be testable and
> must explain the observed data.
Is there anything in my definition(lifted from Prof.Herrmann) of a
"theory" that implies otherwise?
> A "hypothesis" would be the germ of a
> theory which might explain the data observed so far but needs some
> further testing.
Weasel words, this is same sort endless statements we get with
"differential reproductive success" it sounds so sophisticated by says
absolutely nothing just like your statement. My definition which I
lifted from Prof. Herrmann is crisp,clear and to the point,you on the
other hand don't really know what you are trying to say. Read this
book by Prof.Herrmann http://www.serve.com/herrmann/gsa.htm
"The great scientific deception, your endangered mind" where he
explains how using "positivist" statements how a materialist spin is
put on observations.
> Science is "materialistic" by definition.
What exactly is science?
> It deals with verifiable facts and comprehensible causes.
Appeal to abstract authority - Mr.Science deals with nothing only you
do within your metaphysical religious framework that matter created
language and everything you say is the result of bouncing atoms and
thus we can't believe anything you say.
> This separates it from religion
> which is based on faith (instead of observation) and mystery (instead
> of understanding). Is this what you are complaining about?
The mystery sir is your continual refusal to explain how matter
created language. The materialist are so occupied with dead bones that
fail to address the real questions as put forth by Chomsky.
That bone is dead, that bone don't talk, you are free to concoct any
story you want to it is an exercise in futility because the control
algorithms that enabled the interdependent relationship between the
muscles, organs and brain you will never access to making you stories
eternally unfalsifiable.
backspace
> On Nov 11, 5:23 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
> No, I did not.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> > "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> > to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> > individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> > differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> > frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> > genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> > called natural selection...."
> > paragraph?
> The original author of most words isn't known and is hardly ever
> included in the dictionary definition.
The dictionary definition of "love" is accepted by all but not "The
Theory of Love" - you have to
tell me who's theory it is and until we are told the Theory of Love
isn't even wrong.
> > Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> > talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> > what impact does this have on NS?
> None. NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
> organisms and their environment in nature.
Says who? Who established this, where was it published, which
individual are you refering to.
"..We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are
told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
p.2.."
Woland
You are dishonest. Jesus no likey.
John Vreeland
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> opined:
>On Nov 11, 6:17 pm, John Vreeland <vreej...@snotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
>
>> >> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
>> >> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
>> >> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
>> >> you before.
>>
>> >Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
>> >aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
>> >"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".
>
>> That might describe "good logic" but a "theory" must be testable and
>> must explain the observed data.
>
>Is there anything in my definition(lifted from Prof.Herrmann) of a
>"theory" that implies otherwise?
Never having seen your definition, I wouldn't know. Having followed
some of your dialogue, I would say yes, either your definition is very
wrong or you do not understand it.
>> A "hypothesis" would be the germ of a
>> theory which might explain the data observed so far but needs some
>> further testing.
>
>Weasel words, this is same sort endless statements we get with
>"differential reproductive success" it sounds so sophisticated by says
>absolutely nothing just like your statement. My definition which I
>lifted from Prof. Herrmann is crisp,clear and to the point,you on the
>other hand don't really know what you are trying to say. Read this
>book by Prof.Herrmann http://www.serve.com/herrmann/gsa.htm
>"The great scientific deception, your endangered mind" where he
>explains how using "positivist" statements how a materialist spin is
>put on observations.
That is not "spin"; that is the way it works. If you are not basing
your conclusions on what you can reliably detect then you are spinning
fantasy. You are talking the same post-modern rubbish that gave rise
to Scientology's "what's true for you is true" and chupacabras.
>> Science is "materialistic" by definition.
>
>What exactly is science?
>
>> It deals with verifiable facts and comprehensible causes.
>
>Appeal to abstract authority - Mr.Science deals with nothing only you
>do within your metaphysical religious framework that matter created
>language and everything you say is the result of bouncing atoms and
>thus we can't believe anything you say.
There is no Mr. Science. I am defining what science is. If you are
pursuing something else then it is not science. You are always free to
redefine words to create your own private language but you should not
be surprised if people seem to not understand you.
I kindly suggest you read some different books. "The Canon," by
Natalie Angers is new and pretty good.
>> This separates it from religion
>> which is based on faith (instead of observation) and mystery (instead
>> of understanding). Is this what you are complaining about?
>
>The mystery sir is your continual refusal to explain how matter
>created language. The materialist are so occupied with dead bones that
>fail to address the real questions as put forth by Chomsky.
>That bone is dead, that bone don't talk, you are free to concoct any
>story you want to it is an exercise in futility because the control
>algorithms that enabled the interdependent relationship between the
>muscles, organs and brain you will never access to making you stories
>eternally unfalsifiable.
This sounds like an appeal to gobbledygook. Can't you speak plainly?
What dead bones are you talking about? What are Chomsky's "unanswered
questions?" Are you suggesting that the answer can be found through
an appeal to a divine authority? If so, which one?
Anyway, what is so difficult about the question, "how did matter
create language?" Taken literally the answer is simple and obvious.
Is there some hidden meaning to the question?
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
Kermit
> On Nov 9, 11:09 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
>
> > Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
> > you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
> > for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
> > you before.
>
> Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
> aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
> "theories that are at the very least well reasoned".
I am responding to your claim that there is no Mr. Science. It is
extraordinarily stupid or dishonest to claim that anyone has implied
that.
As for Gitt and Humphreys, they may have been trained in science, but
when they talk about Creationism they are not doing science. They are
doing religion, or cynical lies to provide a cushy job. Making up
preposterous lies to fool the rubes is much easier than doing science.
I suspect that they never did science well, but perhaps they are
simply lazy, or sociopaths. I cannot know their motives. You could ask
them, I suppose.
>
> > > What was the original theory then?
> > The biggest change was understanding the quantized nature of genes.
> > Darwin knew that characteristics were largely inheritable, and
> > imperfectly so, but he did not know of Mendel's work, contemporary
> > with his.
>
> The reply is a red herring. Darwin didn't know about genes. I want to
> know what was Darwin's theory of evolution since we are told the whole
> time about "random mutations" in genes and told in peer reviewed
> journals how Darwin managed to figure this out.
No, "we" are not. Perhaps you imagined it. Probably you simply
misunderstood simple speech, as you do routinely in this newsgroup.
Darwin discussed inheritability but he did not discuss genes, as I
said above.
Why are you obsessed with Darwin? He merely started evolutionary
science. If he had died of a tropical fever on the HMS Beagle, someone
else would have come up with his ideas, and we would still be at the
same place now, or nearly so.
You should be addressing the evidence, or providing an alternative
model to explain it, rather than driving home the point that you have
no native tongue. You represent the anti-miracle: rather than give you
a gift of language without working for it, you have had English taken
away from you - which you probably spoke just fine when you were ten.
And by that I do not mean "When you were the number ten".
> But Darwin never said
> this it was an author in 1910, why don't we credit this author?
Why should we. Perhaps Richard is right - you should explain the
source and final authority on all the words you use, before you
attempt to ask inane questions.
> Well
> why not ? What is this about Darwin the whole time.
It's *your obsession. You tell us.
> Oh, I forgot it is
> about materialism not Darwinism and Darwin is become a bit of an
> embarrasment to the materialist religious movement.
Actually, for me it's all about the science, which is not
philosophical materialism.
> Materialism is the
> first general religious movement
It's not religious.
> that actually thinks it can redefine
> the meaning of language itself.
I see no "Mr. Materialism". I also see that you do not believe your
own claims about language. You are not as crippled with words as you
pretend to be. I suspect that you think you are clever. You will claim
that this is not a legitimate usage, but you can still see how to use
it just fine.
> (yes, yes I know this
> appeal to abstract authority, but we all know my intent is the
> materialists.
Google finds no references to this alleged fallacy except your posts.
You say you are motivated as materialists are. Do you mean
philosophical materialists, or the ordinary language usage -
gluttonous and self-indulgent?
This has nothing to do with science. Your continued inability to offer
an alternative, testable model is duly noted.
> Kermit's intent on the other hand
My *intent* is to throw a punch without wobbling. (That's one use for
punching bags.)
> is that if you don't
> believe in his religion
I have no religion. Are you diluting the word "religion" to the point
that it means *any value, belief, activity, perception, or assertion?
Many religious concrete thinkers do this, and the word religion then
loses all value.
> of materialism
When did I say that I was a materialist?
> then you can't provide well
> reasoned descriptions)
"Well reasoned descriptions" are not the whole of science, nor the
meaning of scientific theory, and have little to do with your
ramblings.
>
> > > What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
>
> > Better yet, I'll list some:
Unattributed snips noted.
> > Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
> > simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
> > transitional series.
>
> It is the "fossil record" not evidence. You are refering to the first
> common ancestor which is begging the question.
No, I am referring to the fossil record. It is sorted chronologically,
and shows the progression over time from ancient and now extinct
organisms to modern forms. The nested hierarchy is the best evidence,
however, especially the genetic information.
> First we are told there
> was a first living cell or CA and then we are told that because there
> was a first living CA , therefore the species diverged.
No, we find (we are not "told") that the nested hierarchies of
morphology and genetics, vestigial organs, ethology, and the fossil
record all point to common descent via modification from a common
ancestor, or a few common ancestors. Likely it wasn't a single
organism or even a single species, but rather a community of
protocells and chemistry interacting and sharing to some degree DNA or
its historical precursors.
Kermit
backspace
> > First we are told there
> > was a first living cell or CA and then we are told that because there
> > was a first living CA , therefore the species diverged.
> No, we find (we are not "told") that the nested hierarchies of
> morphology and genetics, vestigial organs, ethology, and the fossil
> record all point to common descent via modification from a common
> ancestor, or a few common ancestors. Likely it wasn't a single
> organism or even a single species, but rather a community of
> protocells and chemistry interacting and sharing to some degree DNA or
> its historical precursors.
And how would anybody be able to falsify what you just wrote?
Woland
By thinking of things like, "If this is true then we should see this
and/or that (we'll call it Mildred), therefore if we do not see
Mildred then it is not true." You know, experiments and stuff.
Rupert Morrish
You can establish it yourself. If you have contradictory evidence,
publish it.
>
> "..We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
> we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are
> told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
> that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
> well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
> but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
> precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
> and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
> Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
> p.2.."
Smith is wrong. Nothing in science is immune from subsequent
contradiction. Some things, of course, require more robust contradiction
than others. You could overturn all of string theory with a single
observation. Overturning evolution will require an explanation of why
the literal tons of evidence were previously misinterpreted.
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
backspace
> > "..We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
> > we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are
> > told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
> > that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
> > well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
> > but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
> > precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
> > and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
> > Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
> > p.2.."
> Smith is wrong. Nothing in science is immune from subsequent
> contradiction. Some things, of course, require more robust contradiction
> than others. You could overturn all of string theory with a single
> observation. Overturning evolution will require an explanation of why
> the literal tons of evidence were previously misinterpreted.
And until you tell us what exactly what precisely is this evidence you
are not even wrong or more specifically who is this individual that
has interpreted this "evidence" and published it in which journal?
richardal...@googlemail.com
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'and'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'are'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'even'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'evidence' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'exactly' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'has'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'in'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'individual' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'interpreted' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'is'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'it'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'journal?' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'more'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'not'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'or'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'precisely' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'published' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'specifically' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'tell'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'that'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'this'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'until' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'us'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'what'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'which' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'who'
you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word
'wrong' you are not even wrong
Until you can tell us what your intent is when you use the word 'you'
you are not even wrong
And you need to communicate this intent without using any words whose
intent you have not clearly established.
Silly little man.
RF
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
hardly make a convincing case - as evidence for your preferred religious
position. When you insist on making dishonest arguments about evolution
why would you expect people to consider you a reliable source?
(The evidence for evolution is voluminous, so it is impracticable to
incorporate more than a small part, or a general overview of the
categories, in a post. The nature of the evidence, at least in outline,
is well known, and it is would be redundant to place it in every
message. You have been participating in this newsgroup long enough to
have at least a cursory familiarity with the nature of the evidence, and
to know better than to think that it is reasonable to claim that the
evidence for evolution can be contained with a single article.)
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
> In message <1194936268.946186.310...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >On Nov 13, 4:34 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
> >> > "..We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
> >> > we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are
> >> > told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
> >> > that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
> >> > well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
> >> > but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
> >> > precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
> >> > and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
> >> > Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
> >> > p.2.."
>
> >> Smith is wrong. Nothing in science is immune from subsequent
> >> contradiction. Some things, of course, require more robust contradiction
> >> than others. You could overturn all of string theory with a single
> >> observation. Overturning evolution will require an explanation of why
> >> the literal tons of evidence were previously misinterpreted.
>
> >And until you tell us what exactly what precisely is this evidence you
> >are not even wrong or more specifically who is this individual that
> >has interpreted this "evidence" and published it in which journal?
> You want people to accept your alleged ability to speak in tongues - you
> hardly make a convincing case - as evidence for your preferred religious
> position.
No, I don't want you to accept it dear sir, I want you to falsify it
using the tools of linguistics. There are over 70 articles in peer
reviewed journals where the linguists have in fact falsified the
glossolalia utterances. All I am asking is that that they try just one
more time - me. I emailed Dr.Bird from Australia who does automated
speech transcription and another Finnish linguist and another and
Dr.Newberg - nothing, no reply just stone dead silence. If I am
talking rubbish then at least motivate it my linguists! The Dr.Newberg
study we discussed with the PETA scans are not really useful because
the subjects had to induce a trance using kinematic behavior and thus
a MRI scan couldn't be done. In my case you would be able to do a MRI
scan since I don't engage in any kinematic behavior but can lie dead
still while speaking in tongues(barely audible if you so desire). A
MRI scan will at least be a start to unraveling the mystery. And I am
writing while speaking in tongues. I have no idea what it is like to
to loose self control since I don't drink nor smoke or do drugs and
have never been drunk. Being in your sane rational mind is the first
requirement for engaging God since he will won't override your will
power.
> (The evidence for evolution is voluminous, so it is impracticable to
> incorporate more than a small part, or a general overview of the
> categories, in a post. The nature of the evidence, at least in outline,
> is well known, and it is would be redundant to place it in every
> message.
Lets make this simple: Is natural selection a cause or an effect ?
Lets take the Finnish shooter who thought that he was the "natural"
selector. He was a contemplated selector who implemented a decision
and made a choice. There was nothing "natural" about it, nothing got
naturaled while he killed the teenagers - would you agree Ernest?
--
Falsify by Glossolalia
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
Woland
Its been explained to you many many many times that there is no such
word as "naturaled." You've been given rudimentary grammar lessons
even. Now, if it were called "naturaling selection," then you would
have a case. However, it isn't called that.
Perhaps its the language barrier. You actually can't even begin to
talk about how we use English until you learn to use it properly.
Woland
The evidence isn't presented by an individual in a journal. its been
presented by many individuals in many journals and books. Wikipedia
even gives an overview! Why do you think that lying is ok? How does
the baby Jesus feel about that? I'm guessing that he doesn't like you
very much.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> No, I don't want you to accept it dear sir, I want you to falsify it
> using the tools of linguistics. There are over 70 articles in peer
> reviewed journals where the linguists have in fact falsified the
> glossolalia utterances. All I am asking is that that they try just one
> more time - me.
Why should they bother? What is so special about YOU? You are obviously
a mental case. Your brain has some sort of short circuit where language
is concerned. You are obsessed with it, but you can't even use it to
communicate ideas.
[etc.]
> And I am
> writing while speaking in tongues.
Which is a good clue that speaking in tongues is not a language.
[etc.]
> There was nothing "natural" about it, nothing got
> naturaled while he killed the teenagers - would you agree Ernest?
Please write one thousand times: "THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS NATURALED".
You have no business talking about language as long as you keep using
that made-up word. And you have no business setting yourself up as an
authority on evolution.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
benb
> There are over 70 articles in peer
> reviewed journals where the linguists have in fact falsified the
> glossolalia utterances. All I am asking is that that they try just one
> more time - me.
Why on earth should they? If they've already done 70 tests falsifying
something, what possible reason would they have for doing it again?
They don't care about your idiotic and laughable claims.
> If I am talking rubbish then at least motivate it my linguists!
This sentence doesn't even make sense, so yes you are talking rubbish
and it doesn't take a linguistic test to see that.
> I have no idea what it is like to
> to loose self control since I don't drink nor smoke or do drugs and
> have never been drunk.
Maybe you should. It's quite good to "loose" self control from time to
time.
> Being in your sane rational mind is the first
> requirement for engaging God
That's you pretty much fucked then.
> since he will won't override your will
> power.
More gibberish.
> Lets make this simple:
We've tried that, and no matter how simple we make it, you still
refuse to listen or understand. I don't think you're stupid naturally;
I think you're being deliberately ignorant by ignoring the evidence
provided to you by Mr. Science. And to willfully pass up an opporunity
to learn something is unforgivable.
> Is natural selection a cause or an effect ?
Not this again, don't you listen to anything people say?
> Lets take the Finnish shooter who thought that he was the "natural"
> selector. He was a contemplated selector who implemented a decision
> and made a choice. There was nothing "natural" about it, nothing got
> naturaled while he killed the teenagers - would you agree Ernest?
Obviously there was nothing natural about it. What does this have to
do with evolution and natural selection? Absolutely fuck all.
Mujin
news:1194974346.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On 13 Nov, 12:15, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There are over 70 articles in peer
>> reviewed journals where the linguists have in fact falsified the
>> glossolalia utterances. All I am asking is that that they try just one
>> more time - me.
>
> Why on earth should they? If they've already done 70 tests falsifying
> something, what possible reason would they have for doing it again?
> They don't care about your idiotic and laughable claims.
To be fair, people working in science don't shy away from doing just one
more test to see if a theory can be falsified - after all, overturning an
established theory is a sure-fire way to become famous (as fame is measured
among scientists anyway). However, the more times the theory has passed
tests, the more compelling the evidence presented must be to persuade a new
test.
The recordings offered in this case are not adequate for several reasons:
1. They don't appear to contradict existing linguistic theories regarding
the production of glossolalia. A strong argument that demonstrates how his
glossolalia is not explained by these theories is necessary for it to be
convincing - his claim to have never used alcohol or other drugs is
irrelevant, since the "altered state" as understood by those who study such
things is not the drug-like trance he thinks it is. He would have to
demonstrate a) an unambiguous definition of the type of altered state that
researchers have claimed is necessary, and b) concrete evidence that he is
not in this state while he is producing glossolalia.
2. While the sounds produced bear a superficial similarity to language, so
do a lot of auditory phenomena - who hasn't occasionally been sure they
heard a voice in the wind, for example? Non-language utterances by humans
have an advantage over other noises, of course, and so are typically more
convincing. In fact, a skilled actor can very convincingly simulate a
foreign language he or she doesn't speak, provided the audience is also
ignorant of the language. See here for an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C5EZmyJ9ik
Note that some glossolalia researchers have suggested that "speaking in
tongues" is a social phenomenon, basically a *conscious* act. They
(usually) don't mean to say that the glossolalia is a deliberate deception
- though of course it might be in some cases - but that production of
language-like sounds is encouraged and reinforced in some social contexts.
Participants may be completely convinced they are "channelling the holy
spirit" when in fact they are doing the verbal equivalent of sketching what
you hear when listening to music.
3. Those who perform glossolalia typically claim that they are speaking an
actual language, and it's my understanding that backspace is claiming this
too. Claiming to speak a completely unknown language is easy, proving it
is hard, and no serious linguist is going to take such a claim seriously.
I see two options here: a) transcribe the utterances and perform a
linguistic analysis to prove that they meet the diagnostic criteria for
identifying language (good luck on this, since others have already gone to
great effort proving that better documented glossolalia events were *not*
language); or b) demonstrate that the utterances are compatible with what
is known of an ancient but extinct language. No modern language will work,
since there's no way to eliminate the possibility that the speaker of
tongues hasn't been exposed to it at some point. Showing that the
utterances correspond to some obscure, well documented, but incompletely
known language like Sumerian would work just fine, I imagine.
>
>
>> If I am talking rubbish then at least motivate it my linguists!
>
> This sentence doesn't even make sense, so yes you are talking rubbish
> and it doesn't take a linguistic test to see that.
Backspace has mentioned that English is not his first language - this,
along with carelessness, accounts for occasional incomprehensibility. I
think it also accounts for certain rather bizarre arguments he makes, such
as complaining that there is no "Mr.Science" or that nothing is "naturaled"
in natural selection. While he's generally fluent, I think that he
occasionally betrays some rather strange misunderstandings about the way
English grammar works, suggesting that he might consider doing some
remedial study before he starts nitpicking the finer points of grammar in
his opponents' posts.
>> I have no idea what it is like to
>> to loose self control since I don't drink nor smoke or do drugs and
>> have never been drunk.
>
> Maybe you should. It's quite good to "loose" self control from time to
> time.
He seems to have made two rather odd assumptions:
- that it's impossible to lose self-control if you "don't drink nor smoke
or do drugs and have never been drunk." This is so obviously false that it
defies the imagination.
- that it's impossible to experience glossolalia and other strange
behavioural phenomena without losing self-control. I don't see any reason
at all why it would be necessary. In fact, the sociological explanations
for glossolalia don't work if the "victim" has lost control.
[snip]
--
Bon nou mujin sei gan dan
Rupert Morrish
Why do you insist that it must be one individual? There is no one
individual because humans do not live long enough for one person to
describe all the evidence for evolution. It is necessarily the work of
multitudes, and not even one person is going to spend their whole life
recapitulating what is already known for the benefit of those who refuse
to be convinced by mere evidence.
However, it would only take one person to dig up a Cambrian rabbit and
turn the whole thing on its head.
Rupert Morrish
In the "I think you answered that question" category:
> If I am
> talking rubbish then at least motivate it my linguists!
And with nary a snip, we move straight into the "vegetarian neurology"
category, with:
> The Dr.Newberg
> study we discussed with the PETA scans are not really useful
richardal...@googlemail.com
It's not up to others to falsify your claims.
It's up to *you* to provide
1) Evidence which supports your claim
2) A potential observation or measurement which would falsify your
claim
3) Details of the observations and measurements you have made to test
your claim
and
4) Details of the observations and measurements other people can make
to validate your claim.
Science does not operate on the premise that any claim is valid until
someone falsifies it.
It operates on the premise that such claims have to be testable.
Your unadorned assertion is not a testable claim.
RF
<drivel snipped>
backspace
> > And until you tell us what exactly what precisely is this evidence you
> > are not even wrong or more specifically who is this individual that
> > has interpreted this "evidence" and published it in which journal?
> Why do you insist that it must be one individual? There is no one
> individual because humans do not live long enough for one person to
> describe all the evidence for evolution. It is necessarily the work of
> multitudes, and not even one person is going to spend their whole life
> recapitulating what is already known for the benefit of those who refuse
> to be convinced by mere evidence.
> However, it would only take one person to dig up a Cambrian rabbit and
> turn the whole thing on its head.
You are begging the question, you are assuming there was a common
ancestor - how do actually know this? You can simply state that there
was a common ancestor and then say because there was one therefore the
animals diverged from this first common ancestor - this is circular
reasoning.
The animals obviously are not the same the differences between donkeys
and tigers are striking.
What you can't do is postulate a first common ancestor by simply
saying that there was one and then say therefore to explain the
difference between a tiger and a mule they simply had to diverge.
Well obviously they would have had to diverge from the first common
ancestor, this just has to be true by definition - but it begging the
question. We are reasoning in a huge circle.
There is no way anybody could prove or disprove the first common
ancestor's existence which is why these meaningless discussion will
continue for eternity because it can't be resolved. Thus I propose
that we shift the whole debate towards linguistics - language where
all the mistakes are made to begin with.
wf3h
> > You are begging the question, you are assuming there was a common
> ancestor - how do actually know this? You can simply state that there
> was a common ancestor and then say because there was one therefore the
> animals diverged from this first common ancestor - this is circular
> reasoning.
you mean other than the fact we can SEE evolution happening AND we can
observe the fossil record
oh...i forgot...creationists don't 'do' evidence. they prefer
superstition.
> >
> There is no way anybody could prove or disprove the first common
> ancestor's existence which is why these meaningless discussion will
> continue for eternity because it can't be resolved. Thus I propose
> that we shift the whole debate towards linguistics - language where
> all the mistakes are made to begin with.
including the idea that there is a 'god' or that the term 'god' has
meaning.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 14, 1:49 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>
> > > And until you tell us what exactly what precisely is this evidence you
> > > are not even wrong or more specifically who is this individual that
> > > has interpreted this "evidence" and published it in which journal?
> > Why do you insist that it must be one individual? There is no one
> > individual because humans do not live long enough for one person to
> > describe all the evidence for evolution. It is necessarily the work of
> > multitudes, and not even one person is going to spend their whole life
> > recapitulating what is already known for the benefit of those who refuse
> > to be convinced by mere evidence.
> > However, it would only take one person to dig up a Cambrian rabbit and
> > turn the whole thing on its head.
>
> You are begging the question, you are assuming there was a common
> ancestor - how do actually know this?
As you have been corrected on this point numerous times, there seems
little point in repeating this other than to demonstrate that your
argument rests on distortions, misrepresentations and falsehoods.
How do you think that this persistence in misrepresenting what your
opponents are posting makes you look? Or do you find blatant
dishonesty a true reflection of your religious convictions?
Just for the sake of the record, and in the full knowledge that you
will pretend that it has never been explained to you in spite of the
fact that it has been on numerous occasions:
Common ancestry is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
It is not an a priori assumption, and it is a fact that the evidence
from which the conclusion of common ancestry was drawn was well known
before such a conclusion was reached.
It is also a fact that all the evidence we have collected since the
conclusion of common ancestry was reached has supported that
conclusion.
If you disagree with this conclusion, you are free to address the
evidence and demonstrate that an alternative conclusion can be drawn
from that evidence.
If all you can do is engage if silly linguistic quibbles, that tells
all we need to know about the validity of your beliefs.
Why do creationists think that a dogmatic persistence in dishonesty
makes them look good?
RF
backspace
> > Is natural selection a cause or an effect ?
> Not this again, don't you listen to anything people say?
Yes, I do I carefully go through Harshman's and Wilkins posts looking
for contradictions and then document and file it away for later
publication. For example Harshman first tells us NS is a cause but
then in another post he tells us it is an effect. So what is NS then ?
If it is an effect what then is the cause? Provine says that NS can't
be a cause, well Dr.Provine does this mean NS is an effect? OR is NS
both an effect and a cause. IF natural selection is a theory then why
can nobody tell wether it is a cause or an effect or both.
> > Lets take the Finnish shooter who thought that he was the "natural"
> > selector. He was a contemplated selector who implemented a decision
> > and made a choice. There was nothing "natural" about it, nothing got
> > naturaled while he killed the teenagers - would you agree Ernest?
> Obviously there was nothing natural about it. What does this have to
> do with evolution and natural selection?
The Finn had a specific intent with NS, you have a different intent.
Intent or pragmatics that is the issue but since NS doesn't exist on
semantic grounds alone everybody just makes up their own intent to the
extent that Phd's in biology can't even tell us wether NS is a cause
or an effect.
http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm tries frantically to get
some sort of conceptual grip on a semantic impossibility. He thinks
that NS is an effect agreeing with Chris Colby's article
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel. But
like everybody else he is confused which led to the misinterpreting
the Peppered moth issue, white bears on the poles, tigers eating the
weak gazelle, black bears in America, bacterial resistance etc. -
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/bc2f37c94ca7a2eb/e38ef27fd440a134#e38ef27fd440a134
The thread is still at number one out of 28500 pages on Google
http://www.google.co.za/search?as_q=design&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Peppered+Moth&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
Mujin
news:1195051432.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 13, 7:19 pm, benb <Ben.Baw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is natural selection a cause or an effect ?
>
>> Not this again, don't you listen to anything people say?
>
> Yes, I do I carefully go through Harshman's and Wilkins posts looking
> for contradictions and then document and file it away for later
> publication.
And yet it would appear you avoid directly engaging them on their supposed
contradictions, which it seems to me would be the more honest thing to do.
Why is that?
> For example Harshman first tells us NS is a cause but
> then in another post he tells us it is an effect. So what is NS then ?
> If it is an effect what then is the cause? Provine says that NS can't
> be a cause, well Dr.Provine does this mean NS is an effect? OR is NS
> both an effect and a cause. IF natural selection is a theory then why
> can nobody tell wether it is a cause or an effect or both.
Heavy rain can cause soil erosion. Is rain a cause or an effect or both?
Playing semantic games like this doesn't make you look very good.
>
>> > Lets take the Finnish shooter who thought that he was the "natural"
>> > selector. He was a contemplated selector who implemented a decision
>> > and made a choice. There was nothing "natural" about it, nothing
>> > got naturaled while he killed the teenagers - would you agree
>> > Ernest?
Explain your intention in the phrase "Finnish shooter". You are obviously
just playing games to confuse the issue. There was nothing "Finnish" about
him, nothing got "Finnished" - would you agree?
Your (probably deliberate) lack of comprehension wrt the quite normal use
of adjectives in English does nothing to further the discussion. If you
have a red ball, the ball has not been redded and nor has anything else.
In the term "natural selection" natural is clearly intended as an adjective
modifying selection so as to differentiate it from "artificial selection"
and "sexual selection". Juvenile attempts at semantic distortion just make
you look like an idiot, or incompetent. I guess it's your choice: say
something substantive or continue to quibble like a contrary 12 year old.
My guess at this point is that you may actually be incapable of doing
anything *but* quibble, but you may yet surprise us.
>
>> Obviously there was nothing natural about it. What does this have to
>> do with evolution and natural selection?
>
> The Finn had a specific intent with NS, you have a different intent.
> Intent or pragmatics that is the issue but since NS doesn't exist on
> semantic grounds alone everybody just makes up their own intent
"Intent"? You are terribly confused. What is the "intent" of gravity?
Does the "intent" of gravity change depending on whether you're dropping
bombs or spraying water on a brush fire? No. The concept itself is
intent-free, just as the concept of natural selection is intent free.
> to the
> extent that Phd's in biology can't even tell us wether NS is a cause
> or an effect.
PhDs can't tell us if rain is a cause or an effect either. So what?
[snip pointless drivel]
backspace
> Your (probably deliberate) lack of comprehension wrt the quite normal use
> of adjectives in English does nothing to further the discussion. If you
> have a red ball, the ball has not been redded and nor has anything else.
> In the term "natural selection" natural is clearly intended as an adjective
> modifying selection so as to differentiate it from "artificial selection"
> and "sexual selection".
Artificial selection is a semantic mistake that Darwin coined in 1859.
Nothing got "artificialed" cow and dog breeders aren't artificialing
anything they are implementing a goal directed decision - there is
nothing "bad" or "evil" or "inferiour" or "artficial" about it. And
Sexual selection what is your intent with it? Who established such a
thing as sexual selection - who did the selecting. Nobody? Really and
who says so?
He was trying to communicate some form of intent and Wikipedia is
refusing to quote the single passage where Darwin uses artificial
selection:
"..Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
fittest...."
What utter rubbish from Darwin don't you agree?
> The concept itself is intent-free, just as the concept of natural selection is intent free.
Your language sir is confused. All communication is an attempt at
communicating intent from a dog wagging its tail to you posting to
this forum. Here is a few observations
1) Materialist refuse to say wether NS is a cause or an effect.
2) Do they use "evolution" in the Darwin gradual or Gould Punk-eek
sense.?
Let take for example the following statement by the BBC"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/earth/evolutionrev4.shtml
"..The theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural
selection..."
The fallacy is of course Appeal to Abstract Authority.
The "theory" doesn't state anything only a human being can state
something. Who is this individual that has established this quote from
the BBC ? In any case is the intent of the BBC with NS as a cause or
an effect and are they refering to gradual evolution or punk-eek
evolution?
Woland
> On Nov 14, 6:41 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>
> > Your (probably deliberate) lack of comprehension wrt the quite normal use
> > of adjectives in English does nothing to further the discussion. If you
> > have a red ball, the ball has not been redded and nor has anything else.
> > In the term "natural selection" natural is clearly intended as an adjective
> > modifying selection so as to differentiate it from "artificial selection"
> > and "sexual selection".
>
> Artificial selection is a semantic mistake that Darwin coined in 1859.
> Nothing got "artificialed" cow and dog breeders aren't artificialing
> anything they are implementing a goal directed decision - there is
> nothing "bad" or "evil" or "inferiour" or "artficial" about it. And
> Sexual selection what is your intent with it? Who established such a
> thing as sexual selection - who did the selecting. Nobody? Really and
> who says so?
In english calling something 'artificial' does not mean 'bad' or
'evil' or 'inferior.' You've been told this before. Why are you so
dishonest? It's also been explained that putting 'artificial' and/or
'natural' in front of 'selection' is a way of differentiating. The
words are used as modifiers on 'selection,' they are adjectives, not
verbs or nouns. Why the dishonesty again?
You have little to no grasp on how people use the English language.
> He was trying to communicate some form of intent and Wikipedia is
> refusing to quote the single passage where Darwin uses artificial
> selection:
> "..Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
> much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
> change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
> organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
> life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
> nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
> fittest...."
>
> What utter rubbish from Darwin don't you agree?
>
> > The concept itself is intent-free, just as the concept of natural selection is intent free.
>
> Your language sir is confused. All communication is an attempt at
> communicating intent from a dog wagging its tail to you posting to
> this forum. Here is a few observations
> 1) Materialist refuse to say wether NS is a cause or an effect.
> 2) Do they use "evolution" in the Darwin gradual or Gould Punk-eek
> sense.?
>
> Let take for example the following statement by the BBC"http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/earth/evolution...
> "..The theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural
> selection..."
>
> The fallacy is of course Appeal to Abstract Authority.
> The "theory" doesn't state anything only a human being can state
> something. Who is this individual that has established this quote from
> the BBC ? In any case is the intent of the BBC with NS as a cause or
> an effect and are they refering to gradual evolution or punk-eek
> evolution?
You are quite insane. There is no such thing as "Appeal to Abstract
Authority." This is simply standard English.
Cheezits
> Artificial selection is a semantic mistake that Darwin coined in 1859.
Followed immediately by:
> Nothing got "artificialed" cow and dog breeders aren't artificialing
There is no such word as "artificialed" either. Darwin didn't coin this
atrocity, *you* did. Hellooo? Backspace? Is anyone home in there?
<knock knock> How's about a response for a change?
Ah, he must be just trolling.
[etc.]
> Your language sir is confused.
[more meaningless babble deleted]
Your language is beyond confused.
Inez
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> babbled:
>
> > Artificial selection is a semantic mistake that Darwin coined in 1859.
>
> Followed immediately by:
>
> > Nothing got "artificialed" cow and dog breeders aren't artificialing
>
> There is no such word as "artificialed" either. Darwin didn't coin this
> atrocity, *you* did. Hellooo? Backspace? Is anyone home in there?
> <knock knock> How's about a response for a change?
>
> Ah, he must be just trolling.
>
> [etc.]> Your language sir is confused.
>
> [more meaningless babble deleted]
>
> Your language is beyond confused.
>
Greg Guarino
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IF natural selection is a theory then why
>can nobody tell wether it is a cause or an effect or both.
Quiz: Cause or effect?
1. Fire
2. Snow
3. Anger
Show your work.
Greg Guarino
Greg G.
He's typing in tongues. It looks like English to people who are
unfamiliar with the language.
--
Greg G.
When I was young, we had to land our spacecraft in the middle of the
ocean.
.
backspace
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:43:52 -0800, backspace
>
> > IF natural selection is a theory then why
> >can nobody tell wether it is a cause or an effect or both.
>
> Quiz: Cause or effect?
>
> 1. Fire
> 2. Snow
> 3. Anger
What is your intent with Fire, Snow and Anger ?
Gregory A Greenman
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, backspace <sawireless2000
@yahoo.com> declared...
> On Nov 14, 6:41 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> > Your (probably deliberate) lack of comprehension wrt the quite normal use
> > of adjectives in English does nothing to further the discussion. If you
> > have a red ball, the ball has not been redded and nor has anything else.
> > In the term "natural selection" natural is clearly intended as an adjective
> > modifying selection so as to differentiate it from "artificial selection"
> > and "sexual selection".
>
> Artificial selection is a semantic mistake that Darwin coined in 1859.
No it's not. It's merely an adjective used to differentiate
between natural selection and artificial selection. Are you in
favor of dropping "natural" and "artificial" and just using the
term "selection", so that the reader has to guess which kind one
is talking about? Why would that be better?
> Nothing got "artificialed" cow and dog breeders aren't artificialing
> anything they are implementing a goal directed decision - there is
> nothing "bad" or "evil" or "inferiour" or "artficial" about it.
1. "Artificialed" is not a word.
2. "Artificialing" is not a word.
3. "Artificial" does not imply bad, evil or inferior.
> And
> Sexual selection what is your intent with it? Who established such a
> thing as sexual selection - who did the selecting. Nobody?
The selecting would be done by sex partners.
> Really and who says so?
Who cares? It doesn't matter who says something. It only matters
if it's true or not.
> He was trying to communicate some form of intent and Wikipedia is
> refusing to quote the single passage where Darwin uses artificial
> selection:
> "..Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
> much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
> change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
> organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
> life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
> nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
> fittest...."
>
> What utter rubbish from Darwin don't you agree?
No. It makes perfect sense. If man can breed plants and animals
to have different properties over a relatively short period of
time (via artificial selection), why can't that same thing happen
naturally? And if it also happens naturally, given that nature
has had far more time than man has, why can't the differences
between breeds be far greater? Greater to the extent that we now
recognize them as different species or families? If this doesn't
make sense, please explain why. If there is a reason why that
can't happen, please tell us what that is.
> > The concept itself is intent-free, just as the concept of natural selection is intent free.
>
> Your language sir is confused.
...as all the irony meters in the world explode...
> All communication is an attempt at
> communicating intent from a dog wagging its tail to you posting to
> this forum. Here is a few observations
> 1) Materialist refuse to say wether NS is a cause or an effect.
> 2) Do they use "evolution" in the Darwin gradual or Gould Punk-eek
> sense.?
>
> Let take for example the following statement by the BBC"
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/earth/evolutionrev4.shtml
> "..The theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural
> selection..."
>
> The fallacy is of course Appeal to Abstract Authority.
Since that fallacy doesn't actually exist, no it's not.
> The "theory" doesn't state anything only a human being can state
> something.
This is, of course, false. Anyone or anything that contains
statements can state something. My bottle of aspirin states that
I should not take more than 12 pills per day. The Declaration of
Independence states that all men are created equal. A sign on the
highway might state that it's five miles to Dallas. Etc.
I hope you're enjoying your silly semantic games. If your goal is
to look stupid, you are succeeding admirably.
> Who is this individual that has established this quote from
> the BBC ?
What does it even mean to establish a quote?
> In any case is the intent of the BBC with NS as a cause or
> an effect and are they refering to gradual evolution or punk-eek
> evolution?
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Inez
Ernest Major
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Tiny Bulcher
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195075846.4...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Tiny Bulcher
> On Nov 14, 1:13 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 9:48 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:43:52 -0800, backspace
>>
>>> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> IF natural selection is a theory then why
>>>> can nobody tell wether it is a cause or an effect or both.
>>
>>> Quiz: Cause or effect?
>>
>>> 1. Fire
>>> 2. Snow
>>> 3. Anger
>>
>> What is your intent with Fire, Snow and Anger ?
OK, now I'm sure backspace the befuddled Boer is just trolling. He's
just playing games here.
Inez
Rupert Morrish
> On Nov 14, 1:49 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>>> And until you tell us what exactly what precisely is this evidence you
>>> are not even wrong or more specifically who is this individual that
>>> has interpreted this "evidence" and published it in which journal?
>
>> Why do you insist that it must be one individual? There is no one
>> individual because humans do not live long enough for one person to
>> describe all the evidence for evolution. It is necessarily the work of
>> multitudes, and not even one person is going to spend their whole life
>> recapitulating what is already known for the benefit of those who refuse
>> to be convinced by mere evidence.
>
>> However, it would only take one person to dig up a Cambrian rabbit and
>> turn the whole thing on its head.
>
> You are begging the question, you are assuming there was a common
> ancestor - how do actually know this? You can simply state that there
> was a common ancestor and then say because there was one therefore the
> animals diverged from this first common ancestor - this is circular
> reasoning.
A common ancestor is a *conclusion* based on the evidence available. If
you have evidence that disproves the theory of universal common descent,
let's see it.
>
> The animals obviously are not the same the differences between donkeys
> and tigers are striking.
No-one claims that donkeys and tigers are the same. However, they have
numerous genetic and morphological similarities, particularly when
compared with a more distant relative, such as a beetle or octopus.
Donkeys and tigers, despite the different roles that vision plays in
their lifestyles, both have vertebrate eyes, rather than one of the 46
other kinds of eye that exists in nature. Common descent predicts -
which is linguistic shorthand for "I predict, using the theory of common
descent", in case you are confused - that their common ancestor also had
vertebrate eyes, as did the last common ancestor of all vertebrates. In
fact, we do not see any animals with backbones and non-vertebrate eyes.
Do you have an explanation of why these apparently independent features
are linked in thousands of species? Is it more likely or better
supported than Common Descent?
> What you can't do is postulate a first common ancestor by simply
> saying that there was one and then say therefore to explain the
> difference between a tiger and a mule they simply had to diverge.
No-one does this.
> Well obviously they would have had to diverge from the first common
> ancestor, this just has to be true by definition - but it begging the
> question. We are reasoning in a huge circle.
You may be, but that's because your claim that the universal common
ancestor is an assumption is false.
>
> There is no way anybody could prove or disprove the first common
> ancestor's existence
Sure there is. Find a vertebrate with cephalopod or insect eyes. Find a
bird with bat wings, or vice versa.
>which is why these meaningless discussion will
> continue for eternity because it can't be resolved.
In fact, it has been resolved. It's just that some people (by which I
mean you) refuse to accept the resolution because it conflicts with
their religious beliefs.
> Thus I propose
> that we shift the whole debate towards linguistics - language where
> all the mistakes are made to begin with.
Your mistakes are not only linguistic. You also make mistakes of fact
and of logic. However, it would help if you would learn what everyone
else means when they use common words, and cease making up new ones.
Rupert Morrish
> On Nov 14, 6:41 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> Your (probably deliberate) lack of comprehension wrt the quite normal use
>> of adjectives in English does nothing to further the discussion. If you
>> have a red ball, the ball has not been redded and nor has anything else.
>> In the term "natural selection" natural is clearly intended as an adjective
>> modifying selection so as to differentiate it from "artificial selection"
>> and "sexual selection".
>
> Artificial selection is a semantic mistake that Darwin coined in 1859.
> Nothing got "artificialed" cow and dog breeders aren't artificialing
> anything they are implementing a goal directed decision - there is
> nothing "bad" or "evil" or "inferiour" or "artficial" about it.
Learn what an adjective is and how they are used in English.
"bad", "evil" and "inferior" are not synonyms for "artificial". Get a
dictionary.
> And
> Sexual selection what is your intent with it? Who established such a
> thing as sexual selection - who did the selecting. Nobody? Really and
> who says so?
Sexual selection happens every time a woman chooses to have sex with
someone else rather than you. It means that inheritable traits that are
attractive to the other sex tend to get passed on to subsequent
generations. A classic example it the tails of peacocks.
Really, everybody either knows this, or is capable of learning it. If
you persist in deliberately misunderstanding people, you will remain,
and continue to appear, ignorant.
[snip]
Mike L
> Thus cwaeth Inez :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 1:13 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 14, 9:48 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:43:52 -0800, backspace
>
> >>> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> IF natural selection is a theory then why
> >>>> can nobody tell wether it is a cause or an effect or both.
>
> >>> Quiz: Cause or effect?
>
> >>> 1. Fire
> >>> 2. Snow
> >>> 3. Anger
>
> >> What is your intent with Fire, Snow and Anger ?
>
>
> > Here ya go-
>
>
> OK, now I'm sure backspace the befuddled Boer is just trolling. He's
> just playing games here.
>
I'm not sure there's a simple ludic intent. It can't be the complete
explanation, but I think some of the palpably nonsensical
creationists, the ones who must /know/ they're being nonsensical,
actually believe they're doing something valuable for their cause.
Perhaps they imagine that they're tying up evolutionist manpower which
would otherwise be out there preaching the evil, corrupting the young,
and generally scaring the horses.
--
Mike.
Nic
Whatever you do, don't put:
I was snowed under with work, then I got fired, but I'm not angry.
in your CV - such are the dangers of 'bots doing keyword searches,
you'll end up being offered a job on the Endurance.
Shane
My guess is that the intent was to demonstrate that you are a nitwit.
It worked.
HTH
HAND
chris thompson
Back in the old days when you stood on a street corner in your
underwear and babbled this tripe, no one answered you.
You must be absolutely thrilled with Usenet.
Chris
Greg Guarino
I should just let it go, but I'd like you to wriggle a little longer.
The most common meanings of each: Fire in the sense of burning, fast
oxidation. Snow as frozen H2O that falls from the sky. Anger meaning
the strong negative human emotion.
So, are they causes or effects?
Let's pin you down a little tighter, shall we? Rather than sputter
that you don't understand my meaning, choose any three nouns in the
English language if you don't like my examples. Are they exclusively
causes, or effects? Love, dynamite, Brussels Sprouts, patella,
tapeworm, Queen Elizabeth II (the person or the ship, you choose)
mahogany, electroplating, or any others that suit your fancy, "suit"
and "fancy" (in the noun sense) included. If any of your nouns has
more than one meaning, pick whichever one you like.
Causes or effects?
Greg Guarino
Mujin
news:1195065078.8...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 14, 6:41 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> Your (probably deliberate) lack of comprehension wrt the quite normal
>> use of adjectives in English does nothing to further the discussion.
>> If you have a red ball, the ball has not been redded and nor has
>> anything else. In the term "natural selection" natural is clearly
>> intended as an adjective modifying selection so as to differentiate
>> it from "artificial selection" and "sexual selection".
>
> Artificial selection is a semantic mistake that Darwin coined in 1859.
On the contrary. Modifying the word "selection" with an adjective, whether
it be "artificial", "natural" or even "wrong" is a perfectly normal
construction in English. No semantic mistake here, unless you have the
stones to actually defend this assertion of yours?
> Nothing got "artificialed" cow and dog breeders aren't artificialing
> anything they are implementing a goal directed decision
Again you betray your ignorance of how English works. Nothing needs to be
"artificialed" any more than a red ball is a ball that has been "redded".
This is simply not how English works.
> - there is
> nothing "bad" or "evil" or "inferiour" or "artficial" about it.
Yet again you betray your ignorance of how English works. In English,
"artificial" merely means "produced by artifice" - in otherwords,
deliberately brought about by humans. Similarly, despite what certain food
manufacturers may want you to believe, the word "natural" doesn't
automatically imply "good" or "superior" - it merely means produced by
nature (i.e. *without* artifice)
> And
> Sexual selection what is your intent with it?
*My* intent? My intent with sexual selection is to produce healthier, more
attractive offspring by choosing certain kinds of sexual partner over
others. Fortunately, I don't have to think too much about it since most
sexual selection takes place at an instinctive level.
> Who established such a
> thing as sexual selection
It's sad that someone who objects as strenuously against the invocation of
authority as you do is so obsessed with demanding that others invoke
authorities at your demand. Pathetic, actually, since it betrays your
basic misunderstanding of science. When you are reading a scientific text,
please try to remember this: it DOESN'T MATTER who wrote it, what matters
is whether the idea hangs together logically, and whether it matches the
physical evidence. Faced with a fresh idea, the correct approach is to
immediately think "hmm, is there any evidence to support this?" and then to
go out looking for it. Not finding the evidence you want? Tough, find
another idea.
Thankfully, there's lots of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
> - who did the selecting. Nobody? Really and
> who says so?
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't believe you are this stupid. You're just
yanking our chains, right? If you're serious, I invite you to think about
it: do you *really* think that there's nobody doing any selecting when it
comes to sex? The obvious answer is that of *course* there's someone doing
the selecting: one or both of the sexual partners. That, in fact, is the
whole point of sexual selection.
If you were serious, I advise you not to try chewing gum and walking
simultaneously.
> He was trying to communicate some form of intent and Wikipedia is
> refusing to quote the single passage where Darwin uses artificial
> selection:
Why should they quote Darwin? The modern synthesis was formulated by
Fischer and several other researchers in the 1930s, and while the final
theory was derived from Darwin's, the modern synthesis is an entirely new
thing that incorporates our knowledge of genetics as well as the
observation of the nested hierarchy made by Darwin, Wallace and many others
through the 1800s.
You are confused about the nature of science. Science is not an endeavor
of individuals, it is an endeavor of communities of scientists. No one
person is responsible for the whole of *any* modern theory, because there
are now dozens if not hundreds of individuals all working on different
aspects of any given question. Yes, when writing for academic publication
researchers make sure to identify where they got their information - but in
the end any summary of the overarching idea is the work of the whole
research community, not any one individual.
Is a farmer solely responsible for the yield of his crops, or is the credit
shared between all those who worked on the farm that season?
> "..Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
> much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
> change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
> organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
> life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
> nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
> fittest...."
>
> What utter rubbish from Darwin don't you agree?
No. I think it's perfectly clear, and in fact an accurate description of
what I see in reality. But by all means explain how Darwin's explanation
falls apart. My bet is that you can't make a coherent argument against it.
>
>> The concept itself is intent-free, just as the concept of natural
>> selection is intent free.
>
> Your language sir is confused.
I think my irony meter just blew a few tubes.
> All communication is an attempt at
> communicating intent from a dog wagging its tail to you posting to
> this forum.
All *communication* is an attempt at communicating. It does not
automatically follow that any given individual word or concept has intent.
And in fact, in this case the concept is intent free. The *word* has no
intent. Or are you now arguing in *favour* of an Abstract Authority?
> Here is a few observations
> 1) Materialist refuse to say wether NS is a cause or an effect.
You failed to respond to my question earlier, so I will repeat it:
Is rain a cause of soil erosion, or an effect of high altitude
condensation?
Is the flight of an arrow an effect of the action of the bow, or is it the
cause of damage to the target?
You are tilting at windmills. Shouldn't you be embarrassed to admit in
public to being afraid of giants?
> 2) Do they use "evolution" in the Darwin gradual or Gould Punk-eek
> sense.?
False dichotomy. Neither Gould's punctuated equilibrium nor Darwin's
gradualism are exclusive - both are valid explanations, depending on the
circumstances.
>
> Let take for example the following statement by the BBC"
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/earth/evolutionre
> v4.shtml "..The theory of evolution states that evolution happens by
> natural selection..."
>
> The fallacy is of course Appeal to Abstract Authority.
> The "theory" doesn't state anything only a human being can state
> something.
Ah. In that case the Bible is also incapable of stating anything, and you
are worshipping a false idol - and an Abstract Authority to boot. Do you
see now where your semantic quibbling has led you? You have done nothing
but establish yourself as a Pharisee.
> Who is this individual that has established this quote from
> the BBC ?
No individual is necessary. In English, as in some other languages with a
scholarly literature, personification of the name of a theory or concept in
the form of "X states that..." is short-hand for saying "the consensus of
scientists doing research in this field is that...".
But of course you know that, and are merely entertaining yourself with the
sin of equivocation.
> In any case is the intent of the BBC with NS as a cause or
> an effect and are they refering to gradual evolution or punk-eek
> evolution?
Asked and answered.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> He's typing in tongues. It looks like English to people who are
> unfamiliar with the language.
I've heard of speaking in tongues, but never writing in tongues, or
someone taking dictation in tongues. Are there such things?